Machinery of Government

– in the House of Commons at 6:17 pm on 25 July 2007.

Alert me about debates like this

Votes in this debate

Photo of Harriet Harman Harriet Harman The Leader of the House of Commons , Member, Labour Party National Executive Committee, Party Chair, Labour Party, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party 6:17, 25 July 2007

I beg to move,

That, with effect from the beginning of the next session of Parliament, the following amendments and related provisions be made in respect of Standing Orders:

A SELECT COMMITTEES RELATED TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the Table in paragraph (2) as follows— (i) leave out items 2, 5, 12 and 14; (ii) insert, in the appropriate places, the following items:
Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform 11
Children, Schools and Families Department for Children, Schools and Families 14
Innovation, Universities and Skill Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills 14
Justice Ministry of Justice (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments, and excluding the work of the Scotland and Wales Offices and of the Advocate General for Scotland); and administration and expenditure of the Attorney General's Office, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office (but excluding individual cases and appointments and advice given within government by Law Officers) 14

(iii) in item 9, in column 2, leave out all the words after 'Home Office'.

B RELATED PROVISIONS
(1) That all proceedings of the House and of its select committees in this Parliament in respect of the Constitutional Affairs Committee shall be deemed to have been in respect of the Justice Committee.
(2) That all proceedings of the Trade and Industry Committee in this Parliament shall be deemed to have been proceedings of the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee.
(3) That for the purposes of Standing Order No. 122A (Term limits for chairmen of select committees) the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Children, Schools and Families Committee, the Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee and the Justice Committee shall be deemed to be the same committees as the Trade and Industry Committee, the Education and Skills Committee, the Science and Technology Committee and the Constitutional Affairs Committee respectively.
C LIAISON COMMITTEE
That the Resolution of the House of 13th July 2005 relating to Liaison Committee (Membership) be further amended by leaving out, in paragraph (2), 'Constitutional Affairs', 'Education and Skills', 'Science and Technology' and 'Trade and Industry' and inserting, in the appropriate places, 'Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform', 'Children, Schools and Families', 'Innovation, Universities and Skills' and 'Justice'.
D EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEES
That Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees) be amended, by leaving out in the Table in paragraph (6) (i) in respect of European Standing Committee B, 'Department for Constitutional Affairs' and inserting 'Ministry of Justice'; and (ii) in respect of European Standing Committee C, 'Trade and Industry'; Education and Skills' and inserting 'Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform; Innovation, Universities and Skills; Children, Schools and Families'.

Photo of Alan Haselhurst Alan Haselhurst Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Ways and Means

With this, it will be convenient to consider motion 7,

That Mr Jack Straw and Paddy Tipping be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Ms Harriet Harman and Chris Bryant be added.

Photo of Harriet Harman Harriet Harman The Leader of the House of Commons , Member, Labour Party National Executive Committee, Party Chair, Labour Party, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party

This motion is to keep up to date the system of Select Committee scrutiny of the Executive. Today's business has, of course, been presented in the right order, but it would probably have been better to deal with the overall picture by debating this motion before discussing the specific case of the Home Affairs Committee. However, I shall move swiftly on.

Before I go on to explain some of the motions in detail, I would like to set them in the context of the programme of reform announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement of 3 July, and in the Green Paper "Governance of Britain".

The Green Paper sets out proposals to give stronger accountability of the Government to Parliament, to assure greater engagement between Parliament and the people and between the Government and the people, and to build strong Cabinet Government. These motions reflect one of those central themes—promoting the holding of Government to account.

Select Committees are one of the House's key tools for holding Government and Ministers to account. Since 1979, the basis of the Select Committee structure has been that there should be a Committee to monitor the work of each principal Department. That was introduced by the then Conservative Government, and supported on all sides. The structure is enshrined in Standing Order No. 152, which is updated from time to time.

In recent months, with the establishment of the Ministry of Justice out of the former Department for Constitutional Affairs, and the more recent establishment of three new Departments, we have seen significant developments that require a number of changes to that Standing Order. Accordingly, the motion provides for new Select Committees to cover the following Departments: Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, Children, Schools and Families, Justice, and Innovation, Universities and Skills. Membership numbers for each Committee are as set out in the motion.

Procedural provisions are included in the motion to allow continuity between the work of old Select Committees and the new ones, so far as is possible. The new Justice Committee continues the work of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, albeit enlarged in size and with a wider remit. The other Committees are, procedurally, new Committees.

I want to say something about the importance of science and technology. Overall responsibility in Government for science and innovation issues was located in the Department of Trade and Industry until the recent machinery of government changes; it now forms a core part of the new Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. There has been great concern in the science community—I have myself received a number of representations from science organisations—about ensuring the continuance of the work of the Science and Technology Committee, so that science issues, particularly ones that cut across Departments, will continue to be properly scrutinised. I have received representations from: Mr. Willis, Chair of the Science and Technology Committee; Professor Broers, Chair of the Lords Science and Technology Committee; the Campaign for Science and Engineering in the UK; the Chemical Industries Association; Professor Derek Burke, who was special adviser to the Science and Technology Committee between 1995 and 2001; the Genetic Interest Group; the Royal Society; the Institute of Biology; the Association of Medical Research Charities and many more. I have considered those representations carefully, and the proposal before the House aims to accommodate the key concerns effectively.

We propose that the Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee, instead of being a Committee of 11 members—as it would otherwise have been—should have 14 members. If the Committee chooses to have a Sub-Committee covering science and technology issues, it will be able to operate that Sub-Committee, in effect, as a successor to the current Science and Technology Committee.

Photo of Phil Willis Phil Willis Chair, Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, Chair, Draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill (Joint Committee), Chair, Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, Chair, Draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill (Joint Committee)

I very much welcome the tone of the right hon. and learned Lady's remarks. Will the Sub-Committee have the same support, in terms of staffing and other resources, as the current Science and Technology Committee? If not, it will be unable to carry out a full cross-cutting Government role.

Photo of Harriet Harman Harriet Harman The Leader of the House of Commons , Member, Labour Party National Executive Committee, Party Chair, Labour Party, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party

That would have to be looked at. I note that although all the representations I received very much welcomed the machinery of government changes, they absolutely did not want to lose the cross-cutting work on science that the Committee chaired by the hon. Gentleman has been undertaking.

Members will note that the motion provides for the changes to take effect at the beginning of the next Session, which is to allow the necessary membership changes to be in place before the formal start date for the new Committees. If that were not done, the Education and Skills Committee, the Science and Technology Committee and the Trade and Industry Committee would disappear without effective Committees being put in their place.

Photo of Peter Bone Peter Bone Conservative, Wellingborough

Will the Leader of the House explain why membership of the Select Committee on Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, which will replace the Committee on Trade and Industry, has been reduced in number when its responsibilities have been increased?

Photo of Harriet Harman Harriet Harman The Leader of the House of Commons , Member, Labour Party National Executive Committee, Party Chair, Labour Party, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party

As I shall explain in a moment, there will be a Committee whose core responsibility will be to look specifically at regulation issues and its work will run alongside the work of the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee.

We do not want the existing Committees to disappear with no effective Committees to replace them. That would create a gap of some time in the pattern of accountability of Government to Committees in respect of the three Departments, which would not be right.

The 1979 departmental Select Committee structure has served the House well. The changes before the House today are necessary to allow the House to take forward effectively the valuable and continuing work of holding each Department to account. I thank the Chairs of the Committees that are being disestablished under the motion—my hon. Friend Mr. Sheerman, Peter Luff, and the hon. Member for Harrogate—and all the members of their Committees for their work on behalf of the House. Of course, the Committee of Selection may nominate many of the same Members to the new Committees, in which case my thanks, though very sincere, may be somewhat premature.

I turn to the motion adding me to the Modernisation Committee in place of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor. The inclusion of that work in our manifesto was a public indication of the importance that we attributed to it. I am pleased to see the way in which the House has changed for the better. The current departmental Select Committee system was introduced in 1979, but the pace of change has increased since then, particularly through the impetus of the Modernisation Committee.

The legislative changes that have taken place include the ability to carry over public Bills, more pre-legislative scrutiny, better information provided to Members and the public and the introduction of evidence-taking Public Bill Committees. For the first time this year, the Government's draft legislative programme has been published for consultation several months before the Queen's Speech. Additional opportunities have been provided for Back-Bench scrutiny via the establishment of Westminster Hall. Written ministerial statements have replaced planted questions; notice time for oral questions has been reduced; and the Prime Minister now appears before the Liaison Committee twice a year.

A raft of measures has been aimed at improving the way in which the House engages with the public as well—with changes to the language, improvements to the website, and increased facilities and resources available to the education unit.

I am aware that some Members feel that the Procedure Committee, which existed before 1997, was capable of carrying out such work. The Procedure Committee has done, and continues to do, valuable work, but there is still a role for a separate Modernisation Committee, which has wider terms of reference and can look beyond the practice and procedure of the House in the conduct of public business to consider issues such as engagement with the public and the working lives of Members. It is clear that, as in the past, the two Committees will need to be chaired in a way that ensures that both have the right and complementary work loads.

I know, too, that some Members continue to believe that a Committee of the House should not be chaired by a Cabinet Minister. Ultimately, that is a matter for the House and for the Committee itself, but the Committee has been chaired by the Leader of the House since its inception in 1997. The Leader of the House has a unique position both as the Government's representative in the House and as the House's representative in the Government. The past Chairmen of the Modernisation Committee have chaired the Committee on a consensual, cross-party basis to deliver reforms to the benefit of the whole House. I made my position clear during my first business statement, when I said that I was fully committed to continuing that tradition as Leader of the House, and I stand by that commitment.

I am grateful to Sir Nicholas Winterton—it says here—for his expression of support for my election as the Chairman of the Modernisation Committee. Notwithstanding the previous debate, I hope that I will be able to work with him. He is a long-standing and committed member of the Committee. I commend the motions to the House.

Photo of Theresa May Theresa May Shadow Minister (Women), Shadow Leader of the House of Commons 6:27, 25 July 2007

Select Committees do an extremely important job in holding the Government to account. Indeed, we should be grateful to all those who serve on Select Committees for the important work that they do. Their work brings focus to particular themes and aspects of legislation; their membership brings expertise; and in large part, their independent spirit brings an objectivity to parliamentary scrutiny, which is, of course, why we have just had such a heated debate on the previous motion.

Debating the Standing Orders that relate to changes in the machinery of government would normally be nothing more than a formality, or perhaps undertaken in a slightly different atmosphere, but on this occasion, the Standing Orders have some political significance, because they reflect the Government's continuous changes to the make-up of Whitehall. That betrays an obsession with spin and structures, a lack of delivery and a disregard for taxpayers' money.

Before the Prime Minister's latest reshuffle of the Whitehall pack, the Government had already wasted £2 million of taxpayers' money on changing the names of Departments. For example, the Department for Transport became the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions, then the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and then the Department for Transport again. But did it deliver? A train is cancelled every five minutes, bus use is down, and the Government have abandoned their pledge to reduce traffic congestion. Carbon emissions are rising, and council tax has doubled. I am sure the public were delighted that the Government's response to those failures was to change the Department's name three times.

One might have thought that this Prime Minister would have learned from the mistakes of the previous one, but I am afraid that he has not. He has created the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, the Department for Children, Schools and Families, and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. According to written answers that I have received—buried on busy news days—the new Departments for Children, Schools and Families and for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform have already spent thousands of pounds on new signs and rebranding.

Whatever the worth of continuing to tinker with the machinery of Whitehall, it makes sense that the parliamentary Committees that scrutinise the new Departments should shadow them accurately. I therefore support the changes to the Committees—with one exception. I have a strong reservation about the decision to scrap the Science and Technology Committee. I heard what the Leader of the House said about the expansion of the number of Members on the Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee in order to enable it to have a Sub-Committee to cover that area. However, I question whether that is going to be able to provide the same degree of focus on science issues as the current Science and Technology Committee—particularly in the light of the implications of the latest report of the Modernisation Committee, which will mean that questions to Chairmen of Select Committees will be allowed in the House and there will be more debates on Select Committee reports.

As I understand it, under the structure that the right hon. and learned Lady is setting up, questions would not be able to go to the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, whereas if we retained the Science and Technology Committee, the Chairman of that Committee, and those issues, would be able to have that focus, through questions. The Sub-Committee is no replacement for a stand-alone specialist Science and Technology Committee. Perhaps that is why, in her explanatory memorandum, the right hon. and learned Lady committed a Freudian slip and referred to the new Department as the Department for Innovation, Universities and Science—rather than Skills.

Talking of the new education Departments and Committees, I note something that will be of interest to Mr. Sheerman. It seems that the term limits for Committee Chairmen will be unaffected by the changes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman hoped that he might have the opportunity to continue to serve as Chairman of the Select Committee, so I commiserate with him. It is a poor reward for his dedicated service to successive Labour Secretaries of State for Education.

Perhaps the Government are putting this measure through because they have even more people to put on the Select Committees who they believe are going to take the Government line. That brings me to the fact that the Prime Minister thinks that it is acceptable for Parliamentary Private Secretaries to sit on Select Committees.

Photo of John Bercow John Bercow Conservative, Buckingham

My right hon. Friend is developing her argument with her usual fluency, but at such a pace that I am afraid that my addled brain was not entirely able to keep up with the flow. My ears pricked up at her reference to Mr. Sheerman. When is his tenure to end?

Photo of Theresa May Theresa May Shadow Minister (Women), Shadow Leader of the House of Commons

I believe that the hon. Member for Huddersfield has already served coming up to the length of time that one is entitled to serve as a Chairman of a Select Committee. Certainly, he would not get two further terms under the motion, which means that the incoming Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families is, in effect, the Education and Skills Committee that has existed until now.

I raised the issue of Parliamentary Private Secretaries with the Leader of the House last week in business questions. We should be absolutely clear that Parliamentary Private Secretaries work for Ministers and owe their jobs and careers to Ministers. I do not believe that they can properly hold Ministers to account. That is a clear conflict of interest and it should not be allowed to continue. They should not sit on Select Committees.

Photo of John Bercow John Bercow Conservative, Buckingham

I am sorry to trespass on my right hon. Friend's generosity—and generosity it certainly is. I put it to her, as I put it to the Leader of the House last week, that it is a question not only of the constitutional impropriety of the proposal, but of the fact that Labour Back Benchers who wish to be dedicated and independent scrutineers of Government will be crowded out if PPSs take their role. It falls to us to defend the rights of Labour Back Benchers.

Photo of Theresa May Theresa May Shadow Minister (Women), Shadow Leader of the House of Commons

My hon. Friend has made his point extremely well and with his characteristic fluency and passion. He always gives a passionate defence of the rights of Back Benchers, and he is entirely right. There are two aspects to the matter. The first is that Parliamentary Private Secretaries are not likely to be assiduous challengers and scrutineers of the Government. The second is that if they are members of Select Committees, the number of spaces available to Labour Back Benchers is reduced, and I am surprised that the Leader of the House—the defender of Members' rights—is accepting the proposal, although she indicated that she would in business questions last week.

Photo of Kevan Jones Kevan Jones Labour, North Durham

I support the idea of championing the rights of Back Benchers on Select Committees, but does the right hon. Lady agree that her ideas should extend to Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen? In the previous Parliament, Mr. Howarth was both a Front-Bench Defence spokesman and a member of the Defence Committee, and he had to be dragged off the Committee kicking and screaming.

Photo of Theresa May Theresa May Shadow Minister (Women), Shadow Leader of the House of Commons

The point is for members of Select Committees to challenge the Government. The Select Committees challenge not Opposition policy, but the Government. The point about Parliamentary Private Secretaries is that they are effectively members of the Government, so their ability—and, I suggest, willingness—to challenge the Government may be somewhat different from that of other Members.

Photo of Kevan Jones Kevan Jones Labour, North Durham

What the right hon. Lady says is interesting. I remember the card of the hon. Member for Aldershot, which said "Shadow Minister for Defence and deputy chairman of the Defence Committee". Committee members are supposed to come to a Select Committee to listen to evidence on all sides of the argument. Does the right hon. Lady not see that there is a complete contradiction if they are also Front Benchers who argue the case for an Opposition party?

Photo of Theresa May Theresa May Shadow Minister (Women), Shadow Leader of the House of Commons

I repeat what I just said to the hon. Gentleman: my point about Parliamentary Private Secretaries concerns their ability to challenge the Government. Unless I am very much mistaken, my hon. Friend Mr. Howarth is far from being a member of the Government, and he is an assiduous challenger and scrutineer of them in all that they do, particularly when it comes to defence matters.

We are also considering the motion relating to membership of the Modernisation Committee, on which I serve. I should say to the Leader of the House that I do not share the concerns that some of my hon. Friends have about whether that Committee should be chaired by the Leader of the House—that is, by a member of the Government. The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, Mr. Straw, was wont to say that the Committee's advantage was that it was chaired by a member of the Government, and its disadvantage was that it was chaired by a member of the Government. It is a difficult one, and, as I say, I do not share the concerns about whether a Government member should chair the Committee. However, as the Leader of the House will know, I am concerned about the fact that she is chairman and deputy leader of the Labour party, as well as a member, and potentially the Chair, of that Select Committee.

On the chairmanship of Select Committees, one reason why we had such a heated debate on the previous motion was that it was implied that Keith Vaz was being put on the Home Affairs Committee in order to chair it. In fact, it was more than an implication; the Leader of the House actually said as much in her speech, Indeed, one of her arguments for the introduction of the motion was that without him, there would be no Chairman.

Photo of Kevan Jones Kevan Jones Labour, North Durham

In an earlier Parliament, Mr. Mates was not on the Defence Committee, but the Conservative party put him on the Committee to become Chair.

Photo of Theresa May Theresa May Shadow Minister (Women), Shadow Leader of the House of Commons

I am not sure that that has any relevance to what I am saying about the Executive bringing a motion before the House and determining—not after the Committee met, but when the motion was before the House—that a certain individual should become a Committee Chairman. The Executive should, rather, leave that to the House. I have a concern about the Leader of the House's membership of the Modernisation Committee because of the multiplicity of her roles.

Photo of Peter Bone Peter Bone Conservative, Wellingborough

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a solution to the problem might be for the Lord High Chancellor, who has been given only half a Department to run, to continue to chair the Modernisation Committee?

Photo of Theresa May Theresa May Shadow Minister (Women), Shadow Leader of the House of Commons

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. When he was the Chairman of the Committee, the present Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor chaired it with great integrity and brought forward a number of significant proposals that change the relative balance between the Executive and the Members of the House. I look forward to the Leader of the House tabling motions that will put into practice the results of the Committee's inquiry into enhancing the role of the Back Bencher, which will have been of particular interest to my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) and for Buckingham (John Bercow), who are both assiduous in exercising their role as effective Back Benchers.

The motion also makes changes to the European Standing Committees. Instead of tinkering with those Committees—the motion merely changes their names—why does not the right hon. and learned Lady reform them properly? If she and the Prime Minister are serious about putting Parliament first, they need to improve our system for scrutinising European legislation. That means a proper scrutiny reserve, an end to the failed European Standing Committee system, and measures to hold Ministers to account on the Floor of the House. As it happens, I made a speech setting out a number of proposals in this area last week, and I would be very happy to send it to the right hon. and learned Lady if she wished to know what those were.

The motion is significant not only for what it contains, but for what it does not contain. I have just referred to the latest report of the Modernisation Committee, which dealt with enhancing the role of the Back Bencher. It contained important proposals to make Select Committees more accountable to other hon. Members. Those included questions to Select Committee Chairman and debates on Committee reports. Despite the report being approved, published and promoted by the last Leader of the House, it has still not been put into effect. When she responds to the debate, perhaps the right hon. and learned Lady will say when those proposals are likely to be brought before the House so that they can be put into practice.

What of the Prime Minister's proposal that Select Committees should have the power to scrutinise public appointments? We had a debate earlier on the nomination for the chairmanship of the Statistics Board—the one public appointment that goes before a Select Committee of the House, the Treasury Committee. I support the concept. It was recommended by my right hon. and learned Friend Mr. Clarke in his democracy taskforce report, which was recently published. If the Prime Minister is so keen to strengthen Parliament and so keen to give new powers to Select Committees, why has not that innovation been included in today's motion on the machinery of government?

What of the Prime Minister's proposal for regional Ministers and regional Select Committees? I have some questions about the role of regional Select Committees. The regional Ministers are in place, but the corresponding regional Select Committees have not been established. There are considerable problems with the concept of regional Ministers. They do nothing to address the fundamental problem of the Prime Minister's constitutional reforms, notably the West Lothian question. They will create split accountability between the regional Ministers and the departmental Ministers. They risk more frequent conflicts of interest between Members' ministerial, regional and constituency concerns, and they are based on regions that exist only in bureaucrats' minds.

For example, I should be interested to know what the Minister for the South East, Jonathan Shaw knows about my constituency, Maidenhead. The problems of his constituency are quite different from those in mine. The regional Ministers do not seem to have any executive powers, in which case what is their purpose? I come back to the point that I made a little earlier. The regional Ministers have been appointed. Why have not the Committees that scrutinise them been established? After all, the Prime Minister promised the two together.

Today's motion is not as uncontroversial as similar motions usually are. It is right to change the structure of Select Committees to mirror the changes in Government Departments. It is right for the sake of parliamentary accountability for the House to keep up with changes in Whitehall, but that does not mean that I will support the motion with any enthusiasm, because it betrays many things about the Government. It betrays an obsession with structures, not delivery, a disregard for taxpayers' money, and a Prime Minister who, far from trusting Parliament, is intent on continuing the spin.

Photo of Brian Iddon Brian Iddon Labour, Bolton South East 6:44, 25 July 2007

I think that, with the exception of my hon. Friend Dr. Turner, I am the longest-serving current member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I have served under three Chairmen—Michael Clark, my hon. Friend Dr. Gibson, and now Mr. Willis.

As right hon. and hon. Members will know, I am, as a chemist, pretty close to the science and technology community. The first inkling of the opposition in the science community to the Government's proposals was when I attended the parliamentary affairs committee of the Royal Society of Chemistry a few days after the announcements. It is not only chemists who sit round that table but members of most of the other professional organisations. Initially they were not only surprised but somewhat outraged by the proposal to disband the Science and Technology Committee. As Mrs. May said, that Committee was created by the previous Administration to create in the House a greater focus on science and technology. The scientific community out there has recognised that focus and has been very supportive of the work of the members of the Committee throughout its lifetime. We have to try to send out the right signal—that the volume and quality of work will continue under the new structure.

I have no doubt that the Government's intentions in creating the new Select Committee on Innovation, Universities and Skills were honourable, and I think that it is the right way forward in terms of focusing the House's responsibilities on those areas. However, I am a little wary about the creation of a science and technology Sub-Committee. The main departmental Committee will consider the research councils—that will be one of its important remits—and science, engineering and technology in the universities, but it will also have to focus on other university-related issues in the arts and humanities, as well as medical schools and so on. Moreover, the Leitch report will demand that it focus to a much greater extent than the House has focused before on the skills agenda. We are constantly picking up on the fact that there is a great shortage of skills in the science, technology and engineering world.

I am particularly concerned about the amount of resources that the Sub-Committee will have. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House has already said that things might not turn out to be as bad as some of us suspect. I remind her, however, of the volume of work that we do at the moment, with seven to nine reports a year. Even taking out the work that the main Committee will do, I doubt whether the Sub-Committee could get through annually two or three major reports such as the space policy report that we have just published, or the marine science report that is due out. It takes at least nine months to collect the evidence, written and oral, and we travel extensively collecting evidence from abroad. We in this country must constantly measure ourselves against the best, which is usually America but also Japan, Germany and France. We have to travel to see what people are doing there. Would adequate resources be available to provide sufficient Clerks and secretarial support for the Committee, and to allow its members to travel?

I recognise that the Government intend to put 14 Members on the main Committee, whereas there are only 11 members of the Science and Technology Committee. Even so, I would guesstimate that there would be only five or six members on the Sub-Committee. Has my right hon. and learned Friend had any thoughts about that? I realise that the decision might be made by the main Committee.

My main point is this. I find serving on a Select Committee, if one is assiduous in turning up to most of the meetings, reading the reports and going on the visits, quite hard work, and I think that most Members would agree, whatever Committee they sit on. A scientist lucky enough to serve on the main Committee covering the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills who is also sitting on the Sub-Committee will find that they have a considerable extra volume of work, and members of the Sub-Committee will probably also want to listen to debates in the main Committee. At the same time, the Government are creating regional Committees. We are asking an awful lot of Members by creating this extra work alongside the other work that they are involved in, which I find increases all the time.

The reports produced by the present Science and Technology Committee have been excellent. It has published cross-cutting reports on many Departments, and considered agencies outside those Departments. We have turned over stones that I do not think people wanted us to turn over; we have looked into nooks and crannies. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether the smaller number of members on the Sub-Committee would be given a strong remit to turn over stones that need turning over and to look into nooks and crannies, bearing in mind the fact that those may be areas of other Departments' work. Unless the role of the Sub-Committee, if it is created, is established very firmly and it is given those powers, its work will not be as effective as that of a main Committee. With those thoughts, I look forward to my right hon. and learned Friend's response.

Photo of Simon Hughes Simon Hughes Shadow Attorney General, Party Chair, Liberal Democrats 6:51, 25 July 2007

This debate starts from a premise on which we all agree: it is really important that the legislature have effective scrutiny of the Executive. That is what underlies the debate. The Government have said that they are committed to that, and I have no reason—apart from a blip a few minutes ago—to think that that is not true. I look forward to seeing more and more power transferred from Government to Parliament, so that it can hold the Executive to account.

As part of that process, Select Committees were set up; they have now been running for nearly 30 years and have been a valuable addition to the work of the House. As someone who has not sought to pursue a career in that part of Parliament's work, I say thank you to those colleagues who have, and to those whose service on particular Select Committees will come to an end as a result of the motion, if it is passed later on. The Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs is chaired very ably by my right hon. Friend Mr. Beith, who was its first Chairman. It was set up relatively recently, when the Department for Constitutional Affairs was created, and it has been able to do its job effectively and well. The Select Committee on Education and Skills regularly has to do serious work on behalf of the House. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry self-evidently covers a huge gamut of work, and the Select Committee on Science and Technology, to which I shall come back later, is chaired equally forcefully and effectively by my hon. Friend Mr. Willis. I say thank you to them for the very important work that they have done.

We are here because the change of Prime Minister last month meant that there were changes to Departments. There is nothing wrong with that; the Government are entitled to organise themselves in the way that they think efficient. However, we have taken the view that when a new Prime Minister—or an existing one—wishes to change the structure of Government, those changes should be subject to consultation with Parliament before they are implemented. Mrs. May made the point that there is a danger that the idea of change is never entirely thought through, and is then undone, or re-done. There have been occasions when a name is invented, then uninvented, because after they had had to write it down for a day or two, people realised the mnemonic for the Department's name was embarrassing.

Putting aside the cost to the public purse, I want to make the strong case that a process in which Departments and the parliamentary organisation of Select Committees change should be the subject of considered, not rushed, decision. There is no reason why the process that we discussed earlier—the scrutiny of a nomination of a person to an important job—should not be paralleled by the scrutiny of a proposal to change a Department. I will give one example, which is not the main subject of the debate.

The proposal to abolish the Department of Trade and Industry, which my colleagues supported and promoted for a long time, is significant. We believe that it was right to do that, but it should be done in a way that has been tested, and when parliamentarians have presented a view, with evidence, to say that we are persuaded by the proposal.

Photo of Alan Beith Alan Beith Chair, Constitutional Affairs Committee

I can give my hon. Friend an even stronger example to bear out his argument. It is the creation of the Ministry of Justice, about which the Lord Chief Justice read in a Sunday newspaper. Indeed, the Lord Chancellor heard about it only a couple of days beforehand. The failure to sort that out carefully in advance has led to a continuing and unresolved constitutional argument between the judiciary and the Government.

Photo of Simon Hughes Simon Hughes Shadow Attorney General, Party Chair, Liberal Democrats

Not only is my right hon. Friend correct, as I would expect him to be, but he was the first to know the facts. When the Lord Chief Justice gave evidence before his Committee, he said that he had read about the changes in a Sunday paper. Clearly, that is a disgraceful and appalling way in which to do business. We ended up with a badly constructed new development in Government. Again, Liberal Democrats supported the idea of a Ministry of Justice, so we do not object on principle. We argue that one should decide what exactly is to be included in the remit of such a Department before finalising the change. A debate should be held about it so that we get it right.

The legacy of the decision rumbled on when the Department for Constitutional Affairs changed—not when the Prime Minister changed, but on 8 or 9 May—into the Ministry of Justice. It meant that that Department did all the things that we associate with justice and also dealt with the legacy of constitutional affairs, which are logically not necessarily justice matters. We have now ended up with slight confusion, as well as the great confusion to which my right hon. Friend referred.

Mrs. May rightly said that we expected part of the consequence of the Government changes to be that we would consider today proposals for Select Committees to reflect the roles of the new regional Ministers. We are in favour of such Select Committees. However, I hope that the absence of a proposal on the Order Paper means that the Government are thinking more carefully about exactly what they will introduce. I hope that they have learned the benefit of delaying a bit and getting matters right. Clearly, such Committees should not include Parliamentary Private Secretaries, but should reflect the political balance of the relevant region. One cannot expect a proper discussion of regional issues if the Committees are all biased and take no account of the balance of the political views in those regions. My colleagues and I will continue to have that discussion with the Leader of the House.

The most controversial aspect of the changes, and the preceding changes, is the implication that the Science and Technology Committee should go. A Sub-Committee of another Committee—however good its members—is not an adequate substitute. I am not a scientist—I did maths A-level—but I have always tried in this place to support scientific activities. I have seen the merit of the work of the Office of Science and Technology. I have followed with interest the work of the Science and Technology Committee. I have noted its investigations and the effectiveness of its conclusions. I have heard about the results of its cross-party work, whether on our place in the global exploration of space—the subject of the recent report that dealt not only with the east midlands headquarters of our space activity but other aspects too—or the inquiry that was recently launched into the science and technology of the controversial issue of abortion. That work is valuable.

I regret that the implication of the proposal is that we are to lose that cross-cutting, cross-departmental scrutiny, which has been such a good thing. It used to happen in Westminster Hall, but those cross-cutting debates have gone, and that is a pity. I do not make those comments simply because my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough chairs the Committee and might be rude to me later if I did not say nice things about it. He has made no such threats. I objectively believe that this is not the way to go. Had there been consultation, and had the Government listened to the voices, we would not be here. I am sad that they have failed to do that.

In motion 7, the Leader of the House has brought to us a logical motion, which suggests that she will follow the tradition of her predecessors and chair the Modernisation Committee. It is good that we have a Modernisation Committee. I want it to be robust in its proposals. I have no doubt that she intends to be robust in what she contributes to it, again on a cross-party basis. Therefore, we have no objection to the new Leader of the House taking over from the previous Leader of the House in that role, or to the supporting consequential change. We will contribute positively to that.

Our objective, which I began with, remains: to see power transferred from the Government to Parliament, from the Executive to the legislature. We want this place to be increasingly effective, not just in science and technology but everywhere. I hope that there can be an agreement to work towards that end and to do things carefully and correctly in future, rather than just taking the Government's word that this structure of government works and that we must all buy into it, whatever the implications.

Photo of Phil Willis Phil Willis Chair, Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, Chair, Draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill (Joint Committee), Chair, Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, Chair, Draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill (Joint Committee) 7:01, 25 July 2007

I do not want to repeat many of the comments that were made earlier, so I shall try to be as brief as possible. I start on a positive note. One of the science community's major concerns has arisen because the Government have been so supportive of science. It is important to put it on the record that the resources going into science, particularly since 1999, have been a huge success story, and include £3.4 billion to research councils. That has fuelled high expectations of the Government's involvement in science. It is important to start with that positive comment, rather than with some of the negative ones.

I should like to continue in the tenor of Dr. Iddon, who calmly and temperately explained many of the reasons for concern about the loss of the Science and Technology Committee. My hon. Friend Simon Hughes echoed those reasons.

I support the establishment of the new Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. Bringing together the university sector, which delivers so much of our research, and the research councils, which pay for much of it, is long overdue and will mean that we are able to plan much more effectively. The whole House agrees with the need for a departmental Committee to scrutinise the new Department, as Mrs. May made clear. That must be right. Also, certain aspects of the Science and Technology Committee's current role, particularly its scrutiny of the office of science and innovation and the office of the Government's chief scientific adviser, have moved to the Department, so I accept, too, that it is quite logical for those aspects to be scrutinised by the new Committee.

However, the main concern for the science community, for business and for members of the Committee—I pay tribute to all its members, who serve it extraordinarily well and put in an enormous amount of time—is about cross-governmental scrutiny of science. I know that other Committees scrutinise across Government—the Public Accounts Committee is obviously the most notable one—but the Science and Technology Committee looks not only at the nooks and crannies, as the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East said, but at science right across Government. Some of the examples of the former Committee's cross-cutting inquiries include its work on human technologies and the law, which has resulted in a draft Bill being considered by both Houses and a new Bill on embryos and tissues, which will be introduced in the Queen's Speech in October. All that began with the Committee's work.

The Committee carried out work on forensic science, and the Leader of the House appeared before the Committee during the follow-up to that inquiry. That work showed that forensic science was covered by various Government Departments, but particularly by various parts of the then Home Office. It also carried out work on identity card technology, on the classification of illegal drugs, on the regulation of hybrids and chimeras, on carbon capture and storage, on space policy and on ocean science. Those are all cross-cutting subjects that involve different Departments in making their contribution to the science agenda.

A big mistake—if I may be so bold—that the Leader of the House and her colleagues made when considering replacing the Science and Technology Select Committee was to believe that it mainly scrutinised the Office of Science and Innovation. In fact, most of the Ministers who appeared before it were from other Departments; they had nothing to do with science and innovation per se. This is the exciting thing about a cross-government scrutiny Committee. For example, when we were considering space policy, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was the lead Department for some of the new space technologies. Similarly, when we were looking at forensic science, we dealt with the Home Office. So such a Committee would not be a case of double jeopardy for Ministers in the new Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. In fact, the work would be spread quite widely across the arena.

To be frank, the amount of support for the Committee from outside the House took me by surprise. The Leader of the House made clear reference to some of the letters that she had received. Moreover, on 13 July, a letter was published in The Times which had been signed by the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Institute of Physics, the Institute of Biology, the Campaign for Science and Engineering, and the Geology Society of London. It stated:

"At a time when the Government has brought science and innovation policy centre stage with the welcome creation of the new Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills, it would be a tragedy if its immediate parliamentary consequence was the abolition of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology."

On 20 July, in an open letter to the Leader of the House, Lord Rees at the Royal Society emphasised:

"This Committee does a great deal of vital work scrutinising scientific matters and the use of evidence across government departments".

When the president of the Royal Society, four Nobel laureates, 30 other distinguished scientists and the organisation Sense About Science say that this is an organisation within Parliament that they want to save, we really should take notice of them.

It was not just the academics who expressed a view. Mark Henderson, the lead science correspondent for The Times said:

"science will never fit into a neat departmental box: it is important to each and every arm of the government."

I believe that that is readily accepted. The Science Council made it clear that the Committee

"has been able to address issues from the broad perspective and publish reports that required a joined-up Government response".

Richard Lambert, the general secretary of the CBI, said:

"A particular issue for business is ensuring that DIUS maintains a strong economic focus".

He went on to say that

"a strong S & T committee would be a valuable part of the scrutiny mechanism in this area".

The breadth of support for the Committee's cross-cutting role within Parliament is an important factor.

I turn to the solution that the Government are offering. I pay tribute to the Government Chief Whip, who has met me, and other right hon. and hon. Members, on a number of occasions to discuss a way forward. We are pleased that the number of Committee members is to be increased to 14, and that a standing Sub-Committee will be established, but I repeat what I said to the Leader of the House earlier, and what the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East has also said—that unless the new Committee has the resources to carry out the kind of cross-cutting science inquiries that the present Committee undertakes, it will be a Select Committee in name only. That would be a betrayal of the work done before and a betrayal of all those people—the learned professors I mentioned, and indeed people in industry—who are so supportive of the Government's commitment to, and policy on, science.

Photo of Lynne Jones Lynne Jones Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments and I have no vested interest, as I am no longer a member of the Science and Technology Committee. Aside from resources, what will be the terms of reference of the proposed Sub-Committee? Will it have the remit to look into science across all Departments, not just the main Department?

Photo of Phil Willis Phil Willis Chair, Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, Chair, Draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill (Joint Committee), Chair, Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, Chair, Draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill (Joint Committee)

I am grateful for the hon. Lady's intervention. As I understand it, it will be for the new Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee—not the Government—to establish the Sub-Committee, and it will then be that Committee's job to establish its terms of reference and agree them with the House. It is important, in my view, that it should be called the Science and Technology Sub-Committee, and it is also important that it have free rein to go wherever it likes across Government wherever science is involved. It should be able to present reports to this House without fear or favour. In order for that to happen, it will need adequate resources.

I believe that there is huge support for cross-cutting science and technology in this House. I hope that the Leader of the House has heard the calls, and that she will respond positively to them.

Photo of Stewart Hosie Stewart Hosie Shadow Spokesperson (Women), Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs), Shadow Spokesperson (Treasury) 7:11, 25 July 2007

Motion 6, in part at least, will put in place the departmental Select Committees to mirror the new Departments. That is an eminently sensible and quite necessary process, which ought to be without issue. However, two changes cause my hon. Friends and me some concern.

The first issue concerns the size of the Select Committee on Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, which effectively replaces the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. Innovation has been removed, but it has been replaced with regulatory reform. My hon. Friend Mr. Weir, who sat on the old DTI Committee, has looked into the matter and estimated the volume of work. He sees the work load as broadly similar, so it seems odd to us that the size of the Committee should be reduced from 14 members to 11.

Secondly, on a related point, all Select Committees must, so far as possible, reflect opinion throughout the House; they must secure a correct level of departmental scrutiny, with questions from all parties reflecting all opinions within the Chamber. It is likely, however, that if the reduction of the new Committee from 14 members to 11 is allowed to proceed, the Scottish National party would lose its only place on a departmental Select Committee. It would leave the joint SNP-Plaid Cymru group with only one departmental Select Committee place—on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. [Interruption.] Notwithstanding some of the more partisan comments, surely as Leader of the House the right hon. and learned Lady must understand that if we are to have proper scrutiny, particularly of the important role of business, enterprise and regulatory reform in a growing economy, questioning must come from people of all parties expressing all opinions.

It is unlikely that the right hon. and learned Lady will be prepared tonight to overturn the decision to reduce the size of this new Committee. However, we hope that she will be able to give a commitment to review the work load of the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee over the next year or so to determine whether a membership of 11 is appropriate or whether it should be increased. We also recognise that she is not the person to appoint or make recommendations for appointments to any Committee—nor should she be—but we hope that in her summing up she will reflect on the need for Select Committees to reflect accurately and properly the full range of opinions in this House. She should provide us with some comfort on that and she should understand the necessity for minority party opinion and voices, particularly on the key Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee.

Photo of Richard Shepherd Richard Shepherd Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills 7:14, 25 July 2007

I shall confine my remarks to a narrow area: motion 7 on the modernisation of the House. The Deputy Chief Whip of the Labour party—a member of the Government, effectively—has tabled the motion:

"That Mr Jack Straw and Paddy Tipping be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Ms Harriet Harman"— a Cabinet Minister

"and Chris Bryant be added."

He is, of course, a Parliamentary Private Secretary. There is no doubt that the right hon. and learned Lady is a well-qualified individual. I know that it is not her being an old Pauline that makes her well qualified; it is that she is a Minister, has had experience and has had a connection with civil liberties. All those factors commend themselves to me. However—I guess she expected me to say "however"—the Committee is now merely the mechanism by which the Executive control the House of Commons. All the reports on the workings of the House of Commons have usurped the role of the Procedure Committee. We have reports on the guillotine, or what we grandly call in Standing Orders "Timetables". In fact, pages 59 to 72 are given over to the way in which the Executive control the detail of the examination of Bills—one of the most important tasks that the House performs.

I shall give the example of what I think a Leader of the House should be. In the years that I have been here, the most remarkable Leader of the House has been the right hon. John Biffen, now Lord Biffen. I say that because the tides of Executive ambition come across the House from time to time. The idea of a business committee and timetabling, which in our experience turned out to be the guillotining of Bills, was on the agenda. On 27 February 1986, when such motions were before the House, the then Leader of the House, Mr. Biffen, said:

"If I were concerned solely with the volume and dispatch of Government business, I would welcome such pervasive timetabling as is now suggested.

The House will be disposed to assume that the proposed arrangements will be operated in good faith and without an eye to party advantage. That may well be so, but I think I am entitled to observe that the" proposed

"Legislative Business Committee would have a Government majority, and that if the Government did not like any proposed timetable, it could be voted down or amended on the Floor of the House.

On balance therefore, I think that the Government"— this is the Leader of the House speaking as the Leader of the House—

"would be advantaged by the Procedure Committee proposals. All Governments are tomorrow's possible Opposition, and I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends, in their moments of supreme confidence, should consider, at least theoretically, how these proposals would bear upon the Opposition.

The Westminster political process is oblique and wide-ranging. It is like a seamless robe, which includes Government legislation, and much else. At present, the Opposition have open-ended opportunities for time and debate on legislation. If these are automatically extinguished, the Opposition will be deprived of a pressure point which is often used to secure accommodation from the Government, not merely on legislation, but on other points in the political process."—[ Hansard, 27 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 1088.]

That is why John Biffen was a remarkable Leader of the House.

The House had a genuinely free vote. We have to remember that Mrs. Thatcher was Prime Minister. I think that the current Leader of the House was in the House. Mr. Speaker was in the House. The leader of the Scottish Parliament or Prime Minister of Scotland, Mr. Salmond, was in the House, as were some Liberal Members, my hon. Friend Sir Nicholas Winterton—who was formerly a distinguished Chairman of the Procedure Committee—and a couple of bonny Members present who represent Glasgow constituencies. What have we reduced ourselves to when we no longer think that this House can aspire to have as its leader someone who realises that there is a delicate balance to strike? That is what this debate is really about.

The proposition before us is that the current Leader of the House should be made a member of a Select Committee. She asserted in an earlier debate that that was a matter of custom, but it is certainly not a matter for Standing Orders. The Modernisation Committee was designed for a purpose, but what I have witnessed over the past 10 years is the almost total seizure of all procedural matters relating to the conduct of business in this House. The Government will always win, because they are a Government by virtue of having a majority; the majoritarian principle prevails, so they will get their way. That is why the Leader of the House is the most important intermediary in terms of the fairness of the balance of debate.

I am anxious about another Parliamentary Private Secretary being placed on the Committee, because it is packed with such Members. Its members include former deputy Chief Whips, a Liberal Democrat Whip and my right hon. Friend Mrs. May, who is currently sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. I almost feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield—the former Procedure Committee Chairman—and I are the only Back Benchers serving on it. Few of the new intake have any memory of what the House of Commons should aspire to be. We talk much about returning the balance of power to the House of Commons; Simon Hughes mentioned that. However, unless we have a Leader of the House who is prepared to take a bigger view, we will be as we are now: reduced.

I have explained why I oppose the motion, but I wish to ask a further question that it does not address: do we need the Modernisation Committee in its current form? Functions such as what office accommodation we should have and how to achieve proper representation more easily should be separated from procedural matters that inform Standing Orders. We saw what happened today. A Cabinet Minister, with the support of a Government majority, swept aside the proper process for appointing Members to serve on a Select Committee. That was said to be necessary for a variety of reasons. People can read Hansard and decide whether they share my judgment on that or agree with the Leader of the House. It is not right that we have cast into the hands of the Leader of the House, through the mechanism of a Committee that already has so many Parliamentary Private Secretaries on it— [Interruption.] In answer to that, I say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's PPS is on it, for instance. We are discussing whether the Government control it. Whips are members of it. It is not a Committee of Back Benchers that can look with objective separation at what is appropriate for the House. Let me give an example.

The Leader of the House's predecessor—who now has another Government job as Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor—said when he was Chairman of the Committee, "There is no point in going down that route because the Whips will not accept it." That is what we who serve on the Modernisation Committee now have to suffer. I know of no other Committee where the Chairman would say, "We can't say this, because the Whips will not accept it." Taking that route would kill whatever worth the Select Committee system has. However, it is not only the previous Leader of the House who took that view—it has been characteristic of the whole process and progress of the Committee.

I commend to the House the democracy commission of my right hon. and learned Friend Mr. Clarke. Through it, he proposes that these two Committees—the ancient and important Select Committee on Procedure, and the Modernisation Committee—should be merged and under the chairmanship of an Opposition Member. He does so because there must be a certain detachment in the assessment of what is appropriate for the House.

I know that my objections and arguments will be brushed aside. [Hon. Members: "Ah."] There you have it, but this House is nothing unless it can control more of its business. The Prime Minister asserts, and I actually believe him, that that is what he wants—that we play a more meaningful role in the dispensation of power within the matters that fall to us. I therefore urge Members, for what it is worth, to think seriously on this, for there is one compelling reason why the present nomination is wrong. Among all the credits to her name, the Leader of the House is also chairman of the Labour party. I cannot think of a more partisan role, of necessity, and of a more blatant example of how the Government control this Chamber.

Photo of Nicholas Winterton Nicholas Winterton Conservative, Macclesfield 7:26, 25 July 2007

I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend Mr. Shepherd. Whatever Members on the Government Benches might think of what he has said, historically and by pedigree he has shown himself to be totally committed to this House, to proper debate and to the rights of Back Benchers in all parts of the House. I personally salute him for the work that he has done over all the years that he has been here.

I am delighted, too, that my hon. Friend quoted John Biffen, who was an inspirational and dedicated Leader of the House—a man who led the House without too much party politics not only at business questions, but at other times. I make a plea to the current Leader of the House that the party political content on the Floor of the House be kept to a minimum. While she has a prime duty to ensure that the Government get their business, her other duty is clearly to represent the best interests of the House as a whole.

The omen for the House of what happened in the earlier debate, on which there was a vote, is not good. Unfortunately, and despite not only my pleadings but those of a Member of the House who is highly respected in all parts of it—my right hon. Friend Sir George Young—the Leader of the House, who could have withdrawn that motion, chose not to do so. I regret that. As a result, the omens for fairness and even-handedness do not herald well for Members in all parts of the House, particularly Opposition Members.

I also support the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that at some future stage, the Modernisation Committee should be merged with the Procedure Committee. We are talking now about the appointment of two people, one of whom will, in due course, be elected as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee. It is a very powerful Committee and it seems utterly wrong that it should be dominated by one party. That is why I question the appointment of a PPS as well as the Leader of the House. Unfortunately, a PPS cannot be objective. He or she cannot adopt an independent view separate from that of his or her Minister. Therefore, the two are tied together inextricably. Clearly the Committee will suffer as a result. Members are appointed to a Select Committee not just for their party view, but to take an objective view. The discussion of modernisation should have nothing directly to do with party politics: it should have everything to do with the convenience of this House and its ability to do its job of holding the Government to account and scrutinising legislation.

I have had the pleasure of serving on the Modernisation Committee since it was set up by the new Labour Government in the autumn of 1997 and I have served under several Leaders of the House. One of the most inspirational and exciting to work with was the late Robin Cook. He was committed to the House and to returning independence and integrity to it. He suffered a major setback when the Committee's proposals on the appointment procedure for Select Committees—unanimously agreed by that Committee under his chairmanship—were defeated by the Government. Although it was supposedly a free vote, there were Government Whips outside the Lobbies saying, "Vote this way, this is the Labour Lobby." I hugely admired Robin Cook for his principles and almost unlimited ability, but he was disappointed and depressed that a proposal that would have improved the independence and integrity of the House, by getting on to Select Committees those people who had an interest in that Committee, the ability to do the job, and the knowledge and experience to serve it—and by extension the House—well, had been defeated.

I shall not vote against the motion. As I have said, I have spoken with the Leader of the House and I say to her, not in a patronising way, that she will have to show the House and the members of the Committee that she can be entirely impartial in seeking to serve the interests of the House as it holds the Government—

Photo of Nicholas Winterton Nicholas Winterton Conservative, Macclesfield

I shall give way to the hon. Lady, whom I also admire for her courage and, occasionally, her aggression. There will come a time, perhaps in the not too distant future, when she and her colleagues will be on the Opposition side of the House. Then they will have a slightly different perspective on what the Modernisation Committee is doing and the ability of Opposition Members and parties to hold the Government to account.

Photo of Diane Abbott Diane Abbott Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I personally think that my right hon. Friend Keith Vaz will make an excellent Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. I also personally believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend Chris Bryant will be adornments of the Modernisation Committee. However, as someone who has served in the House both in opposition and in government, it concerns me that we are losing sight of the fact that the Committees are Committees of the House. I am concerned by the increasingly naked direction by Whips of who should chair them. The point is that the Committees are supposed to choose their own Chairs. The people whom we have put forward are wonderful and brilliant, but some of us remember when the assumption was that Select Committees represented the whole House and were able to appoint their own chairs.

Photo of Nicholas Winterton Nicholas Winterton Conservative, Macclesfield

Of course, Select Committees are able to appoint their own Chairmen. I speak from experience: when the remits for social services and health were divided up between two Select Committees, my previous work on health meant that I was not put up by my party for the post of Chairman of the Health Committee. However, with the support of the Labour and Ulster Unionist parties, and with my own vote, I did manage to achieve that post.

Like other parties, however, mine is inclined to get its way in the long term. After the 1992 election, I applied to be reappointed to the Health Committee, and I am confident that I would have been elected its Chairman, but my party did not nominate me. It invented a new rule that was no rule at all. It was a rule for the Conservative party, but not for the Labour party. That has nothing to do with this House, but the people responsible were made to look very foolish. For my part, as one door closed, another opened, but we need a Select Committee system that genuinely represents the interests of the House.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, the previous Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, who remains a nominal member, often said that he could not take a proposal to the Government because the Whips would not accept it. That is an example of a Select Committee Chairman who is a Cabinet Minister and who openly admits that certain proposals that the Committee would like to make to the House cannot be got through the Government Whips and the Cabinet. That means that the Committee in question could not be truly independent.

I hope that similar problems will not arise when the present Leader of the House is Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, as she has a duty to both House and Committee as a whole. The fact that the Whips might not like a proposal is no reason why it should not form part of a report that can be debated by the House and responded to by the Government.

The late Robin Cook was a very distinguished Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, but I repeat that he was ultimately torpedoed by his party's Whips. That tragedy is an example of the sort of thing that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is very aware of. We believe that the Modernisation Committee should be led by a Chairman with integrity. He or she must be prepared to take forward proposals that would benefit the House as a whole.

The Leader of the House knows that I support the creation of a business committee that would give Back Benchers more say about how the House of Commons uses its time. We are not just lackeys of the Executive. We are here to do a job using our knowledge and experience and we should represent our country and our constituents, as the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington does so well.

I tell the Leader of the House that my priorities are the interests of my country, the interests of my constituents and, only third, the interests of my party. If more Members of the House had those priorities, in that order, turnout at elections would be much greater, respect for politicians would be much greater and people would have greater respect for Parliament.

As I said, I shall not vote against the motion because I trust the right hon. and learned Lady. We have spoken and she knows my priorities in the House. I hope we can work together to improve Parliament, not only for parliamentarians but for the people we represent.

Photo of Harriet Harman Harriet Harman The Leader of the House of Commons , Member, Labour Party National Executive Committee, Party Chair, Labour Party, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party 7:40, 25 July 2007

Mrs. May was concerned that a Science and Technology Sub-Committee might not have membership of the Liaison Committee and would thus not be able to put questions to the Prime Minister and others who appeared before the Committee. That situation would be addressed if the Chair of the Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee was also the Chair of the Sub-Committee.

Photo of Theresa May Theresa May Shadow Minister (Women), Shadow Leader of the House of Commons

The right hon. and learned Lady slightly misunderstood what I said. My point was not about the Liaison Committee but about the new arrangements that will enable questions to be asked of the Chairmen of Select Committees—one of the issues examined by the Modernisation Committee. It was in that context that I was considering the possibility that the Science and Technology Sub-Committee might not be given the opportunities it would have had if it had continued to be a full Committee.

Photo of Harriet Harman Harriet Harman The Leader of the House of Commons , Member, Labour Party National Executive Committee, Party Chair, Labour Party, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party

I thank the right hon. Lady for her clarification of that point.

I understand the concern of Members about Parliamentary Private Secretaries, but they are not members of the Government. The previous Government did the same as we do. PPSs do not sit on Committees covering the Departments in which they are PPSs.

The right hon. Lady asked about Europe. The system of European Standing Committees is of interest to a number of Members. The Government are still considering their position on how the system of scrutiny for EU matters can best be developed.

Photo of John Bercow John Bercow Conservative, Buckingham

The right hon. and learned Lady tells the House that Parliamentary Private Secretaries are not members of the Government. Will she confirm that it is the normal expectation that when Parliamentary Private Secretaries vote, they will vote with the Government?

Photo of Harriet Harman Harriet Harman The Leader of the House of Commons , Member, Labour Party National Executive Committee, Party Chair, Labour Party, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party

The normal expectation is that all Labour Members of Parliament will vote with the Government.

As I said, we shall continue to look at the question of proper scrutiny of European legislation. The question of regional scrutiny was raised.

Photo of Simon Hughes Simon Hughes Shadow Attorney General, Party Chair, Liberal Democrats

May I make a small point? The right hon. and learned Lady said that the Government's current plan is for Parliamentary Private Secretaries not to sit on the Committee relating to the Department where they are a PPS. The exception to that is of course her hon. Friend Chris Bryant, who is her PPS and is proposed for membership of the Modernisation Committee, which is one of her responsibilities.

Photo of Harriet Harman Harriet Harman The Leader of the House of Commons , Member, Labour Party National Executive Committee, Party Chair, Labour Party, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party

Indeed. That situation is different for a number of reasons that I mentioned in my opening comments and to which I shall return briefly.

We are committed to greater accountability for the regions of England, and the Government are giving further consideration to the proposals for regional scrutiny and will report back to the House.

I pay tribute to the work of Mr. Willis and my hon. Friend Dr. Iddon on the Science and Technology Committee. They are absolutely right: the volume and quality of that work must continue. The number of members on the Sub-Committee that is to be constituted is a matter for the Committee. If the Committee wants it to, the Sub-Committee will have a strong remit to turn over stones—as has been said—and to look into nooks and crannies.

Simon Hughes mentioned parliamentary scrutiny of machinery of Government changes. Obviously, the machinery of Government is ultimately a matter for the Prime Minister and one would not want Departments to be in abeyance while there were long discussions, but the hon. Gentleman's point is worth considering. Ministers from different Departments, when dealing with science issues, as well as other stakeholders, could be called to give evidence to any Sub-Committee that deals with science and technology.

Stewart Hosie raised the issue of the smaller parties. He has discussed that with the usual channels, and I will ensure that I raise the issues that he has raised in the House today.

Photo of Pete Wishart Pete Wishart Shadow Spokesperson (Cabinet Office), Shadow Spokesperson (Culture, Media and Sport), Shadow Spokesperson (International Development)

The right hon. and learned Lady will have to do a little bit better than that. If we lose the place on the new Committee, the Scottish National party will lose 100 per cent. of its places on departmental Select Committees and SNP-Plaid Cymru will lose 50 per cent. Although she cannot determine the membership of Committees, she can say that there will be a Labour majority and that Conservative Members will serve on the new Committee. However, she has to make a real commitment to say that we will maintain our place on departmental Select Committees.

Photo of Harriet Harman Harriet Harman The Leader of the House of Commons , Member, Labour Party National Executive Committee, Party Chair, Labour Party, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party

That is not for me to say at this point. There will be further discussion about the membership of Select Committees when they are reconstituted.

I am left with responding to the points made by the hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton). The hon. Member for Macclesfield is clearly frustrated and feels that more progress should have been made on the Modernisation Committee, but a great deal has been done by that Committee in the past 10 years. If he thinks back to when the Modernisation Committee was formed, he will realise that many innovations have strengthened the role of the House, as a result of that Committee's work and his work on it. Clearly, he is frustrated in that he wants it to do more, and I look forward to working with him to ensure that it does so. However, I ask him not to lose sight of the good work that has been undertaken already.

On the points made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, it is important that we do not lull ourselves into the belief that there was a golden age. I know what it is like to be in opposition. I was in opposition for 15 years, under Margaret Thatcher and John Major, and when I sat where the hon. Gentleman sits now, I did not think that that was the golden age of parliamentary democracy. He might remember that his Government often crushed him, as well as the Opposition, even when he was sometimes right and agreed with us. It is important that none of us thinks that there was a golden age then.

Photo of Richard Shepherd Richard Shepherd Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills

I was not trying to score a point across the House; I was trying to point out what was the role of a Leader of the House and I was citing John Biffen in that example. The right hon. and learned Lady may well have been in the Chamber when he made that speech. That was the traditional view of how the role was conducted. Indeed, I spoke up from the Government Benches, just as Government Members still occasionally speak up for the needs of opposition. The role is particularly important because of the minority parties. Their very argument shows the right hon. and learned Lady's duty. I was merely citing the John Biffen example, and if she can follow that route, I will give a cheer.

Photo of Harriet Harman Harriet Harman The Leader of the House of Commons , Member, Labour Party National Executive Committee, Party Chair, Labour Party, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party

I was a Member when John Biffen was Leader of the House. If the hon. Gentleman cares to look at this week's issue of The House Magazine, he will see that, when I was asked which Leader of the House I would model myself on, I mentioned John Biffen. So I well remember that time, but I also remember his not succeeding in the face of his Government riding roughshod over his attempts to strengthen the House.

I do not think that the hon. Member for Macclesfield should consider the Modernisation Committee as being packed; it works by consensus. Do the Modernisation Committee members feel that they have not been able to achieve what the Modernisation Committee wants to achieve because the Committee is packed? It has made progress—more progress than, unfortunately, John Biffen, however good his intentions, made in his day.

Photo of Alex Salmond Alex Salmond Parliamentary Leader (Westminster), First Minister of Scotland, Leader, Scottish National Party

The point about the Leader of the House having special responsibilities is surely well made. At various times Select Committee arrangements have, in effect, broken down—as when there was an attempt to deprive Sir Nicholas Winterton of the Chair of the Health Committee. Chairs of Committees, as proposed by the usual channels, have been overturned by the House. Usually things come to a crisis because the Leader of the House at the time is not able to reflect the whole balance of the House. The procedures are very open to challenge—as the right hon. and learned Lady well knows. Every single change to a Select Committee could be debated on the Floor of the House. We could go on for an interminable time unless the Leader of the House is sensitive to a number of points that are being made.

Photo of Harriet Harman Harriet Harman The Leader of the House of Commons , Member, Labour Party National Executive Committee, Party Chair, Labour Party, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party

Indeed, and I take the right hon. Gentleman's point.

I join hon. Members who have paid tribute to Robin Cook. I was deputy to Robin Cook for many years when we were in opposition. He, too, was a Cabinet member and a Leader of the House. Like me, he was a committed member of the Labour party, who believed, as I do, that the Government should be held to account. It is in that spirit that I hope to serve on the Modernisation Committee and continue my work as Leader of the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 25.

Division number 202 Machinery of Government

Aye: 248 MPs

No: 25 MPs

Aye: A-Z by last name

Tellers

No: A-Z by last name

Tellers

Question accordingly agreed to.