Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 2:51 pm on 30 October 2003.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Gordon Prentice Gordon Prentice Labour, Pendle 2:51, 30 October 2003

I speak from memory, but I think that that point is covered in the motion. The hon. Gentleman may not have read it closely enough.

Now, what should I say next? There is so much to say and I do not want to stray out of order.

Let me finish on this point: after the Dunwoody-Anderson furore, the Labour party changed its procedures. It used to be the case that the Chief Whip, without consultation, would bring forward names to the parliamentary Labour party, which would rubber stamp them, and that would be it. Now, a kind of intermediary phase exists, in which the Chief Whip brings forward names to the parliamentary committee, which is like the 1922 committee, which can amend those names and then put them to the PLP for endorsement. It is important that people understand the procedures and feel that they are fair. There will always be some element of judgment somewhere in the system, but openness and transparency are absolutely paramount.

I will not support the motion before the House today, and I hope that we can revisit the issue in a way that allows us to resolve the problems that have been identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and other Members in relation to how we introduce fairness into the appointments system in the first place.