Wednesday 12 November
LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LEADS IN DEBATE ON REGIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY
TO VIEW THE MOTIONS AND EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM PLEASE CLICK HERE.
VIEW Q & A HERE.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Ms Harriet Harman): I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the Third Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on Regional Accountability (HC Paper No. 282); approves the proposals for regional select and grand committees for each of the English regions set out in the response from the Government in the White Paper, Regional Accountability (Cm 7376); accordingly endorses the clear expectation that the regional select committees should meet significantly less frequently than departmental select committees; and considers that the combination of select committees providing opportunities for inquiries and reports into regional policy and administration together with opportunities for debate involving all honourable Members from the relevant region will provide a major step forward in the scrutiny of regional policy.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we will consider the following:
Amendment (c) in line 3, leave out from '282)' to 'opportunities' in line 9 and insert—
'approves the proposals for regional grand committees for each English region set out in the response from the Government contained in the White Paper, Regional Accountability (Cm. 7376); and considers that'.
Amendment ((a) in line 5, after '(Cm 7376)', insert—
Motion 4— Regional Select Committees—
That the following new Standing Order and amendment to temporary Standing Orders be made, with effect from 1st January 2009 until the end of the current Parliament—
(1) Select committees shall be appointed to examine regional strategies and the work of regional bodies for each of the following English regions:
(2) Each committee appointed under this order shall consist of not more than nine members; and, unless the House otherwise orders, all Members nominated to a committee shall continue to be members of that committee for the remainder of the Parliament.
(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn to any place within the United Kingdom, and to report from time to time;
(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference;
(i) Members of the House who are not members of the committee but represent constituencies within the region in respect of which it is appointed, and
(ii) specified elected councillors from the region in respect of which it is appointed to attend and participate in its proceedings at specified meetings (but not to move motions or amendments, vote or be counted in the quorum).
(4) In addition to the members appointed under paragraphs (2) and (3) of this order, one Member who is for the time being the Chairman of a Regional Select Committee shall be a member of the Liaison Committee.
(5) The question on a motion in the names of the chairmen of all the Regional Select Committees to nominate a member of the Liaison Committee under paragraph (4) shall be put forthwith and may be decided after the moment of interruption.
Amendment (a), in line 15, at end insert—
Amendment (b), in line 17, after first 'members', insert—
Amendment (c) in line 19, at end, insert—
'(2A) In nominating Members to the Committees under this order, the Committee of Selection shall have regard to the proportion of Members of each party representing constituencies in the relevant region;
(2B) Notwithstanding paragraph (2A), the Committee of Selection shall nominate at least one Member from each of the three largest parties to each Committee.'.
Amendment (d) in line 30, leave out from 'appointed' to end of line 32.
Motion 5— Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees—
That this House expresses the opinion that the Resolution of the House of 30(th) October 2003, relating to Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees (No. 2) should be amended by inserting after '(Select committees related to government departments)' the words 'or Standing Order (Regional select committees)'.
Motion 6— Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees—
That the Resolution of the House of 30th October 2003, relating to Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees (No. 2) be amended by inserting after '(Select committees related to government departments)' the words 'or Standing Order (Regional select committees)'.
Motion 7— Regional Grand Committees—
That the following new Standing Orders be made, with effect from 1st January 2009
(1) There shall be general committees, called Regional Grand Committees, for each of the following English regions:
which in each case shall consist of those Members who represent constituencies within 15 the region and up to five other Members nominated by the Committee of Selection, which shall have power from time to time to discharge the Members so nominated by it and to appoint others in their place.
(a) a Regional Grand Committee to sit on a specified day at a specified place 20 in the region to which it relates or at Westminster;
(3) The question on a motion under paragraph (2) shall be put forthwith and may be decided after the moment of interruption.
(a) questions tabled in accordance with Standing Order (Regional Grand Committees (questions for oral answer));
(b) statements by a Minister of the Crown, in accordance with paragraph (5) below;
(5) The chairman may permit a Minister of the Crown, whether or not a Member of the House, to make a statement and to answer questions thereon put by members of the committee; but no question shall be taken after the expiry of a period of 45 minutes from the commencement of such a statement.
35 (6) If the House has resolved that the business at a sitting of a committee shall be concluded at a certain hour and it has not otherwise been concluded before that time the chairman shall, at that time, adjourn the committee without question put and any business then under consideration shall lapse.
(1) Notices of questions for oral answer in a Regional Grand Committee by the relevant regional minister, on a day specified in an order made under paragraph
(2) of Standing Order (Regional grand committees), may be given by members of the committee in the Table Office.
(2) Notices of questions given under this order shall bear an indication that they are for oral answer in a specific Regional Grand Committee.
(3) No more than one notice of a question may be given under this order by any member of the committee for each day specified for the taking of questions.
(4) On any day so specified, questions shall be taken at the time provided for in an order under paragraph (2) of Standing Order (Regional Grand Committees); no 50 question shall be taken later than three quarters of an hour after the commencement of the proceedings thereon; and replies to questions not reached shall be printed with the official report of the committee's debates for that day.
(5) Notices of questions under this order may be given ten sitting days before that on which an answer is desired save where otherwise provided by a memorandum under paragraph (8) of Standing Order No. 22 (Notices of questions, motions and amendments), provided that when it is proposed that the
House shall adjourn for a period of fewer than four days, any day during that period (other than a Saturday or a Sunday) shall be counted as a sitting day for the purposes of the calculation made under this paragraph.
Amendment ((a), in line 1, after 'made', insert
Amendment ((b), in line 13 at end insert—
Amendment (c), in line 15 leave out from 'region' to end of line 17.
Ms Harman: Today, I bring to the House the Government's proposals on regional accountability, to put in place an effective and visible improvement in the scrutiny of, and democratic accountability of, the public agencies and public policies that operate in the English regions. The reality is that in every region in England there are important public agencies, with budgets of billions of pounds. The decisions that they make, and how they put those decisions into practice, shape the future of the regions and profoundly affect those who live and work in them.
At regional level, those agencies are much bigger than—and are beyond the accountability of—any local authority in the region. The regional development agencies, the strategic health authorities, the Learning and Skills Council and the Highways Agency are big regional beasts. Their regional directors and chief executives are regional "masters of the universe", with huge budgets. However, they are public bodies spending public money in the public interest, and it is right that they should be publicly accountable through this House to the region that they serve. Both in Parliament and within Government it has been recognised that there is the problem of an "accountability gap" in the regions; now we are seeking to do something about it.
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): What part of "no" does the Leader of the House not understand following the referendum result in the north-east on elected regional government? Does she not understand that the people of England do not want to be balkanised and regionalised at their own expense?
Ms Harman: We are not proposing to the House what was proposed in the north-east.
Mr. Redwood rose—
Ms Harman: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I can get on and explain what our proposals are.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): The right hon. and learned Lady is talking about accountability to the regions. She knows how unhappy many of us in the south-west are about the composition of the south-west regional Select Committee. Will she give me a guarantee that no hon. Member from outside the region will sit on that Committee and that every county in the south-west will be represented on it?
Ms Harman: On the composition of the Select Committees, about which I hope to develop an argument if I can proceed with my comments, I can say that they will be Committees of the House and their composition will reflect that of the House.
Ms Dari Taylor (Stockton, South) (Lab): Speaking as Member of Parliament for a constituency in the north-east, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that big organisations often set priorities that my constituents neither have any involvement in nor feel that they are a part of, and they believe that through a Select Committee—through me—they have a chance of being heard?
Ms Harman: My hon. Friend points to the exact problem, and now we are doing something about it.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): May I take the Leader of the House back to the central question asked by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)? Would not the membership of all these regional Committees have a Government majority, which would inevitably mean that many regions would need to have Members drafted on to them from outside those regions?
Ms Harman: The composition of the Committees will be as for all Committees of the House, including the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee chaired by the hon. Gentleman.
Several hon. Members rose —
Ms Harman: I will give way a couple more times, but I would like to speak as briefly as possible in order to give hon. Members— [ Interruption . ] They said that this is a short debate, so it will not take long for them to listen to my comments and then make their own.
Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): If the regions are characterised by masters of the universe with multi-billion-pound budgets, why is the Leader of the House prescribing Select Committees that are recommended not to meet very often and will clearly be pale imitations of the real Select Committees of this House?
Ms Harman: I will develop my argument about how these Select Committees will fill the current gap in accountability. The Government have made major increases in investment in the regions, including the establishment of regional development agencies, which we need to hold to account for what they do in each region of England.
Graham Stringer (Manchester, Blackley) (Lab): My right hon. and learned Friend clearly identifies a democratic deficit, but would it not be more sensible to break up some of these regional bodies and put their resources back into local democracy, from whence they came, instead of setting up expensive, unnecessary and remote Select Committees?
Ms Harman: There has been big investment in these regional bodies—strategic health authorities, highways agencies and learning and skills councils—but this investment is additional to the extra funds that have gone to local government.
Mr. Greg Hands (Hammersmith and Fulham) (Con): Will the Leader of the House give way?
Ms Harman: I will press on with my comments, if I may.
In our current economic climate, it is even more important that we ensure that taxpayers' money is being used in the most effective and efficient way possible in every region. The regional Committees that we propose plug the accountability gap and provide this House with a means to conduct effective investigations and to make clear recommendations for change, but with the flexibility to meet the differing needs of each of the regions. The motions propose that we should establish regional Select Committees to examine regional strategies and the work of regional bodies. There is no need for a list of bodies that fall within their remit. The key principle is that they should look at the development and implementation of policies where there is a regional aspect to decision making or delivery—that is, where funding or priorities are set regionally or where bodies are organised on a regional basis.
Mr. Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con): Given that the right hon. and learned Lady is saying that it is important that regional accountability is preserved and that bodies operating regionally are held accountable, how can it be right that Members from outside those regions sit on, or perhaps even chair the Committees? How can that deliver effective regional accountability? It is a travesty.
Ms Harman: I hope that hon. Members will not feel that it is a travesty when we have regional Select Committees that allow this House to hold those regional organisations to account, as well as regional Grand Committees that involve all Members from the region.
Several hon. Members rose —
Ms Harman: Let me press on with my explanation of our proposals.
Concern has been expressed about the scope for overlap between the work of the regional Committees and the work of the departmental Select Committees. In order to minimise that, the motion invites the House to endorse the expectation that regional Select Committees will meet less frequently than departmental Select Committees and provides for only one of the regional Committee Chairs to serve on the Liaison Committee. We propose that each Committee should have up to nine members, nominated by the Committee of Selection in the usual way. As with all Committees of the House, their membership will reflect the composition of the House. That is the long-established practice of the House in relation to Select Committees of all kinds, including the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Affairs Committees.
Several hon. Members rose —
Ms Harman: I will give way once more, and then I must press on.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): I thank the Leader of the House for giving way, which prevents me from having to make a substantive speech. In light of the Government's decision to pack the regional Select Committees with Labour Members from outside those regions, and given the problems of obtaining a quorum for many Select Committees, what guarantee can she give that those Labour Members will turn up?
Ms Harman: I absolutely refute the idea that the Committees will be packed with Labour Members from outside the regions concerned.
Mr. Hands rose—
Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South) (Con) rose—
Ms Harman: Perhaps I will not give way again if it is merely an opportunity for hon. Members not to need to make their own speeches, which I am sure that the House wants to hear.
Mr. Jim Hood (Lanark and Hamilton, East) (Lab): I welcome the regional Select Committees. Given that the motion says that they will come into effect from 1 January 2009, may I invite my right hon. and learned Friend to treat as a matter of urgency the calling of the Scottish Grand Committee, which has not met for some time and needs to meet to discuss some very important issues concerning Scotland? I look forward to seeing that on the Order Paper in the new year.
Ms Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I will certainly consider bringing that forward.
We propose that these new regional Select Committees are able, if they wish, to link up with local authorities. The motion therefore gives regional Select Committees the power, if they so wish, to invite local councillors to participate in their meetings, but not to move any motions or amendments, vote, or count towards the quorum.
While the motions to establish regional Select Committees present the House with an opportunity to provide for detailed investigations into and reporting on agencies and action at regional level, we want to ensure that all Members in a region can be involved in greater regional accountability. We therefore propose that as well as the regional Select Committees, we establish regional Grand Committees to include all Members from the region. The regional Grand Committees will be a forum to consider the "state of the region" and would meet annually, or twice a year if the need arose. As with regional Select Committees, we expect that they will generally meet in the region, taking Parliament out of Westminster and into the regions.
Regional Grand Committees will be able to hold wide-ranging debates and statements on regional issues, and provide Members in that region with an opportunity to put oral questions to regional Ministers to hold them to account for their work in fulfilling the responsibilities set out in the "Governance of Britain" Green Paper. That will meet our commitment that they should be directly accountable to Parliament in that role. The resolution we are considering today, and the Modernisation Committee—
Several hon. Members rose —
Ms Harman: I will give way to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field).
Mr. Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con): I totally disagree with the idea of any of these regional Committees, but given that the Leader of the House, like me, is a London Member, what is the rationale behind the Government's thinking that there should not be a London Committee? There will be Committees for all the other regions, and we already have Committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Ms Harman: I take the hon. Gentleman's point that as a London Member, he opposes the idea of a regional Select Committee in London. None the less, he is complaining that it is not on the Order Paper—presumably, so that he could vote against it. I will say something about London in a moment.
The resolution that we are considering, and the Modernisation Committee inquiry, covers only the eight English regions. It does not cover Scotland, Wales or London, each of which have different governance arrangements. Scotland and Wales already have Grand and Select Committees tailored to each. London has different governance from the eight English regions, and I intend that following on from this resolution, we should turn our attention to London and get on with making arrangements for deepening the scrutiny of pan-London organisations, such as the strategic health authority. Following consultation, we will bring forward proposals to the House early in the new year.
The proposals we are putting to the House today strengthen regional accountability to this House. They will provide every hon. Member who represents a constituency in the English regions an opportunity to participate in the scrutiny of regional policy and regional expenditure, alongside more detailed scrutiny by regional Select Committees. The resolution establishes these regional Committees only for the lifetime of this Parliament, at the end of which there will be the opportunity to review them and see how they have worked. I commend them to the House.
3.1 pm
Mrs. Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con): In speaking to the motion, I will also speak to the amendments, including the one standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara). I am conscious of the desire of many Members to make their voices heard in this debate, so I will aim to restrict my remarks. I will not address the issue of whether the regions in question are the right ones, or whether some of the regional bodies that the Select Committees are due to hold to account should exist in their current form—a matter about which I have severe doubts. I also will not address the fact that the hole in regional accountability that the Government seem to think needs fixing is there only because of the way in which they have consistently set up new regional bodies to take responsibilities from this House and local authorities.
I will address whether the way forward is through regional Select Committees. Before I do that, it is important to set the matter in context. We need to remember that regional Select Committees were first proposed in a statement made to the House in July 2007 by the Prime Minister. That statement was accompanied by a Green Paper, "The Governance of Britain", from the Ministry of Justice. It proposed regional Select Committees as a means of achieving formal and consistent parliamentary scrutiny, not only of regional policy but of regional Ministers—new posts created by this Prime Minister. I shall not go into great detail on that issue. Suffice it to say, I believe that regional Ministers should be held to account for what they do, through oral questions regularly either in this House or in Westminster Hall, not through oral questions to regional Grand Committees that take place only twice a year, as proposed by the Government. We need to be able to hold those Ministers to account in a better way.
As was referred to in the previous debate, the issue was discussed at considerable length in the Modernisation Committee, and as a member of that Committee, I sat through evidence from regional bodies, the House authorities and Chairmen of existing Select Committees. It was absolutely clear that no case was made for regional Select Committees as the answer to the problem of the need for increased regional accountability. There was no consensus on the move to regional Select Committees, and the Modernisation Committee, in its report, raised severe doubts about the impact of regional Select Committees. It referred to
"practical challenges in their creation, including: the risk of disrupting existing departmental select committee business; the potential to distract public bodies and agencies working in the regions from their core activities and central lines of accountability; the possibility of duplicating scrutiny work already being undertaken in the regions; the additional burden on Members' time and workload; increased demands on House resources".
Given the reservations of the Modernisation Committee, it is all the more important that the House knows that this proposal, which originated from a policy proposal of the Prime Minister and the Government, was pushed through the Committee on the Chairman's casting vote—the Chairman being, of course, the Leader of the House. There was no consensus for change. You may call me old-fashioned, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I happen to think, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) said during the earlier debate, that when we are changing the structure of the House, Select Committees or other matters relating to the House, the Leader of the House should aim for consensus among the parties, so that there is general acceptance of the proposals in this House.
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal) (Con): Did my right hon. Friend notice that, far from aiming at consensus, the Leader of the House ignored the fact that the majority of Back Benchers—those not paid on the Committee—voted against the proposition? She got it through not only by her own vote, but by the vote of her Parliamentary Private Secretary, who is now her assistant.
Mrs. May: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I would add that the Government, in order to get the vote through, had to change the membership of the Select Committee the night before the vote to ensure that one Labour Member, who presumably was unable to attend, was taken off the Committee, and that a Member who was able to attend was put on to it. That Member was not present for any of the evidence sessions taken by the Committee, but voted on those proposals.
Mr. Redwood: Does my right hon. Friend understand that the Labour Government seem to have this awful fear of England? They devolved power to Wales and to Scotland, but they will not devolve any power to England. Instead, they want to break it up.
Mrs. May: My right hon. Friend's point leads neatly into my next comment, which is that the unwritten intention behind the Prime Minister's proposal was to find a solution to the West Lothian question. The message we should send clearly to the Leader of the House is that whatever else the expensive new structure will do, it will not answer the West Lothian question.
Mr. James Plaskitt (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab): The right hon. Lady said that no case had been made. I put this view to her:
"the proposals for regional select committees is critical for full accountability and...a step change in service delivery."
That view comes from the West Midlands Business Council. Why does she disagree with the top 23 business organisations in the west midlands?
Mrs. May: If the hon. Gentleman would like to wait a while, I shall come on to why I think that Select Committees are not the answer.
What will these regional Select Committees actually do? Are they to scrutinise Government regional policy, such as what the Government are telling the regional development agencies to do? If so, that role is already being carried out by existing Select Committees. Regional development agencies are accountable to the Select Committee on Business and Enterprise, which is ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff). Moreover, the Select Committees hold a significant number of their meetings in the regions. If the regional Committees are not to scrutinise Government policy, which is already scrutinised by existing Select Committees, what will they do? Will they allow hon. Members to question decisions taken by regional bodies in their area? A better way of doing that would be in regional Grand Committees, where all Members can be present to discuss the issue, and not in a Select Committee, where a limited number of Members—not all of whom will be from that region—will be present.
Andrew George (St. Ives) (LD): Did the Modernisation Committee have the opportunity to reflect on the original role, under a previous Standing Order, of the Regional Affairs Committee, which was presumably established to provide the level of scrutiny that the Government said that they required at that stage? It has not sat since 2004—on the day of the north-east referendum, in fact. Is that not a test of the Government's sincerity in their wish for regional scrutiny?
Mrs. May: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point. One could argue that the Government's proposal is more about creating positions and chairmanships for Labour Back Benchers than proper regional scrutiny.
Mr. Curry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real reproach to regional Select Committees is that they are, to use a Yorkshire expression, neither nowt nor summat? They are not fully fledged Select Committees, but a sort of imitation of them. They must co-opt councillors by an unspecified method—God knows how we would choose them. They are enjoined specifically to meet only now and again. Is that not bizarre? Should the Government not make up their mind about whether committees are a good or bad idea, and then we could make a decision about something real?
Mrs. May: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point and highlights one of the problems at the heart of the Government's proposals.
The evidence that we took in the Modernisation Committee cast genuine doubt on the value of regional Select Committees and their ability to do the job that the Government claim that they can do. In his evidence, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, as Chairman of the Business and Enterprise Committee, said:
"It is very important we plug the gap in a way that does not actually undermine the role of mainstream departmental select committees. Their policy oversight role must not be compromised by new committees, whatever form they take".
My fear is that their policy oversight role will be compromised. When the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), was Chairman of the Liaison Committee, he added to that point by saying that,
"what we are worried about is the problem of overlap, conflict for resources and priority of access to witnesses".
Experienced Members expressed serious doubts about the ability of regional Select Committees to operate in a way that would not damage work that the House is already doing. The Government and the Leader of the House should heed the warnings of those with experience in such matters.
Sir Peter Soulsby (Leicester, South) (Lab): The right hon. Lady refers to some of the evidence that the Select Committee heard, but does she recall the considerable volume of evidence that called for the establishment of regional Select Committees, not least from the regional development agencies? They felt that they were not being held adequately to account and that regional Committees were needed for their good governance as much as for our scrutiny of their work.
Mrs. May: Evidence from the regional development agencies was not universally in one direction about the sort of body that should be established. They identified a problem of regional accountability, but not all said that regional Committees were the answer. The hon. Gentleman, who sat on the Modernisation Committee and heard the evidence, may cite the regional development agencies, but Members with experience of the operation of Select Committees cast genuine doubt on the ability of regional Select Committees, albeit meeting only a few times a year, to conduct their business in a way that did the job that the Government claim they could do.
Julia Goldsworthy (Falmouth and Camborne) (LD): Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. May: I should like to make a little more progress because I am conscious of the time, but I do not want to sit down before I have made a point about the strain that regional Select Committees will put on the House. That is important. There is already difficulty in finding people to fill existing Committee posts, yet we propose the creation of 72 new posts. Problems with filling vacancies will not be helped by the proposal. Indeed, there is a danger that the committees could find themselves in the farcical position of not having enough members or being inquorate, and that would have an impact on witnesses and perceptions of the House.
We also need to consider the House's resources. The Management Board has made it clear that there would need to be new staff. Existing Clerks could take up some of the work load, but many new staff would need to be recruited, hired, trained and so on.
That brings me to cost. We are told that the annual running costs of the committees could amount to just over £1 million. I suspect that it would be considerably higher. Together with the outlay on regional Grand Committees, which the Government also propose, the bill will fast approach £1.5 million if not £2 million a year. That money could be rather better spent.
To plug the regional accountability gap, we need go no further than setting up regional Grand Committees, which would give every Member in a region the opportunity to make their views known about what was being done by bodies in their region. Every part of a region would be represented, and we would avoid the position that could arise with the regional Select Committees, whereby people from outside the region may be included to maintain the Government's majority. The Grand Committees would not need to meet so often, and their running costs would be significantly lower than those of the regional Select Committees.
Let me consider the amendments that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) tabled. Select Committees should comprise Members, not members of local authorities co-opted on to them. If the hon. Gentleman pressed that, I would support him. I also support amendment (a) about Chairmen's pay. It is proposed to pay them in the same way as the Chairmen of other Select Committees, which would meet much more frequently and have a far greater work load. The House should reject that.
Mr. Curry: Is it not slightly curious that Members of the European Parliament, who have, by definition, a regional mandate and deal with many issues that are relevant to the regions, are not among those who could be co-opted on to a regional Select Committee?
Mrs. May: As a former Member of that august body, my right hon. Friend has much experience of the input of Members of the European Parliament in the regions.
Regional Select Committees would duplicate the work of existing Committees and risk disrupting the work of departmental Select Committees. They would duplicate the scrutiny work that already takes place in the regions, significantly increase the demands on House resources and place a greater burden on Members' time, taking more Members away from the Chamber. They are not the collective wish of the Modernisation Committee. The Government are introducing them for their own ends, not in the House's interest, and the House should reject them.
Several hon. Members rose —
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has placed a five-minute limit on Back Benchers' speeches, which operates from now.
3.16 pm
Mr. James Plaskitt (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab): I greatly welcome the proposal to introduce regional Select Committees for two simple reasons: they will plug a clear gap in accountability and oversight, and they will help Members of Parliament in the regions serve our constituents more effectively.
Many issues come to us as regional Members of Parliament that we cannot easily tackle at a regional level. If issues that are unique to our constituencies arise, that is fine—we have easy access to the public authorities that deal with them. If national issues arise in our constituencies, we can raise them here. However, many issues are regional, and we do not currently have the means through Parliament, or our role as Members of Parliament, to hold regional organisations to account.
Members of Parliament are not the only ones to want access to regional organisations; many regional organisations want the opportunity to meet regional Members of Parliament and would welcome the introduction of regional Select Committees. They cannot currently bring together Members of Parliament from the regions, but a forum such as that the one the proposal envisages would provide an opportunity to do that.
Cross-departmental co-ordination is essential. The Government are therefore right to appoint regional Ministers, but, to complete the circle of accountability, those Ministers should also appear before regional Select Committees.
A considerable gap exists. The regional authorities in the west midlands spend tens of billions of pounds. Parliament could spend a small amount of money to help secure proper accountability for a vast amount of public spending. The structure of who does what in the regions can be difficult for Members of Parliament to navigate. Parliamentary oversight might help achieve greater co-ordination between the different organisations that work in the regions, and even some rationalisation.
Mr. Harper: If the organisations in a region are keen to be scrutinised in the way in which the proposal suggests, perhaps we should consider whether asking poachers what sort of gamekeeper they would like to monitor them is a good idea. If regional organisations are so keen on regional Select Committees, its is perhaps because they do not believe that those committees will scrutinise them and hold them to account effectively.
Mr. Plaskitt: The hon. Gentleman underestimates the ability of parliamentary Select Committees to get to grips with an issue. Experience shows that they are adept at getting to the heart of issues, and he should not underestimate their abilities.
If we take the main players in the west midlands as a case in point, we will see the scale of the gap that this proposal seeks to plug. Advantage West Midlands has a £300 million pound budget, and is running 2,500 projects. It recently launched the west midlands economic strategy, which will run until 2011 and is designed to plug a £10 billion output gap in the region. Why should not the region's MPs be involved in the oversight and delivery of that strategy, which is critically important to our constituents? It involves skills, enterprise, innovation, transport and economic inclusion issues, which are not easy to grasp in a group, other than through the creation of these Committees.
There are six sub-regional regeneration zones, with 19 different organisations involved. We need a regional Select Committee to give us, the region's MPs, the chance to get to grips with that array of bodies. The Government office for the west midlands joins 10 different Departments in the region and grapples with major issues of planning and transport, and the region's MPs need better oversight of it. The learning and skills council for the west midlands has a large budget and a strategy involving employers, young people, adults, colleges and providers. The council also addresses 12 sector skills areas that are also of critical importance to the businesses in the region and another reason why we need the ability to scrutinise it. Incidentally, the learning and skills council has six local offices, each with an economic development team.
All other aspects of regional structure are in place. Local government has its regional assembly. The MEPs, as has been mentioned, have a regional role defined by their constituencies. The Departments have the Government office for the west midlands, and Ministers have an oversight within the region. Parliament is the missing bit of the jigsaw, but it should be holding all the others to account. That is what we must put right, in the interests of ensuring proper parliamentary accountability of the Executive in all their manifestations. We must do that in the interests of better helping us to represent our constituents and, in the interests of making our region and all those working in it, operate for the benefit of the people whom we represent in this Parliament.
3.22 pm
Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD): This is an important debate, which is why it is a disgrace that we have only an hour and a half for it. Many Members will not have the say that they want to have, and should have. I ask the House to accept amendments (b) and (c) to motion 4, and amendment (c) to motion 7, tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The Government are in their present difficulties because they have never properly grasped the need to address devolution in England. They honourably and rightly—if eventually and under pressure—realised that devolution was necessary for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. I note that devolution to those places gave them proportional representation for their Parliaments and Assemblies, so that they are representative of the people whom they represent. London also has a degree of devolution, introduced by this Government, that is representative of the people of London and provides an element of accountability. But this Government have never understood the need for devolution in England. Until they understand that, they will not command the necessary support in this House for their proposals.
There are different views about how to achieve that devolution for England. Some of my colleagues would prefer a form of regional government, but that was tried—and clearly did not succeed—in the north-east. Some of us believe in an English Parliament, but that suggestion requires constitutional deliberation on how to complete devolution across the United Kingdom. In the absence of such structures, it is right to have a way of holding regional bodies to account, including the quangos and strategic bodies that are not held to account at present. The Government have further failed to grasp the central obligation that follows from that—that those bodies should be held to account by representatives from each region who are chosen by the people of that region.
My party would argue that those representatives should reflect the votes in those regions, but in three regions the Government came second or third in share of the vote at the last general election. Even if we do not win that argument, the Government should at least propose Select Committees that reflect the balance of political representation in each region, which differ hugely from each other. The Committees should also reflect the differences between the regions, but the Leader of the House—as she confirmed earlier in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—has failed to accept that.
We propose that the same principle should apply that—it could be argued—currently applies to the Scottish and Welsh Committees. Scotland and Wales have a majority of Labour Members, and so do the Committees. Northern Ireland has never had the benefit of a fair system: there are nine MPs from the Democratic Unionist party and nine others, but that balance is not reflected on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
It is now proposed that the Government should have a majority on the regional Committee for every one of the eight regions of England. At the last general election, the Government did not win the largest share of the vote in the east, south-east or south-west of England. Indeed, they came third in the south-east and the south-west—regions with millions of people. The Government are trying to impose their majority in all of England, when they do not have a majority in every region. Worse, they are trying to fiddle the system so that they can bus in colleagues from other regions to make up their majority. They are insisting that the Grand Committees, made up of all the Members from every party, should have up to five other nominated members. Not content with corrupting the balance on the Select Committees, the Government also want to pervert the balance of the Grand Committees. The Leader of the House must understand that that is causing the greatest offence and suggests great disrespect to the people in many of the regions, some of whom already think that their region is an artificial creation or difficult to accept. They are being told that not only do they have to accept those artificially created regions, but that they will have imposed on them a Government majority, no matter how they have voted in the past.
Mr. Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Leader of the House is wrong to make a direct comparison with other Select Committees? They are subject-based and therefore properly represent the whole of the House of Commons. The new Committees would be regionally based and, therefore, should represent those who have an interest in that region.
Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman is right. That is why we have also argued that the Chairmen of the new Committees should not be paid the same as the Chairmen of a UK-wide subject-based Committee. Eight new Committees are proposed, so we suggested that the Chairmen should be paid an eighth of what the other Chairmen are paid. If that is not accepted, we share the view of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) that, at least to start with, those posts should not be remunerated. Otherwise, we will just be accused of creating more jobs at public expense.
May I make a point to endorse what was said by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May)? We have 41 Select Committees. If we agree to this proposal, there will be 49. There will then be a Speaker's Conference,
with the same powers as a Select Committee, which makes 50. There will be 72 more members of Select Committees as a result of such a decision being taken today, and more as a result of there being a Speaker's Conference, which we are to appoint later.
At the moment, 159 colleagues serve on more than one Select Committee, eight serve on as many as four and I have to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you are not aware of it, that many Committees struggle to achieve an adequate attendance. It does the credibility of the House no good to have a small and sometimes inquorate number of colleagues on Committees sitting to take evidence from whoever we call. That is not good for our reputation and it is why we ask the Leader of the House, before adding another range of Select Committees to our armoury, to defer all these debates until we can review the workings of Select Committees generally.
Julia Goldsworthy: I remind my hon. Friend that we are looking at establishing regional Select Committees to replace the regional assemblies, which many people in my constituency considered far too remote, indirectly elected and unaccountable to the needs of their local area. Does he share my consternation in relation to how a regional Select Committee, which might contain Members who do not even represent part of the region concerned and which will have no direct democratic accountability, might be considered preferable by any of my constituents? I sincerely doubt that they will consider it satisfactory.
Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend and my hon. Friends from the south-west have the strongest reasons for objecting to the way this is going to work out. The south-west stretches from Tewkesbury in the north and Swindon in the east down to the Isles of Scilly. At the last election, Labour won 13 seats, we won 16 and Conservatives won 22, so Labour has the least number of seats, but it is now being proposed that, instead of the regional assembly, Labour colleagues will dominate a Committee representing an area of that size. By definition, that means that Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members cannot be chosen to represent Somerset, Cornwall, Devon, Gloucestershire and the other areas—it cannot happen. The people of those regions and the organisations of those counties will look to a Select Committee to look after their interests, but that cannot be done because, as anyone in the House knows, the interests of Cornwall might be different from those of Gloucestershire.
Friends often make the point to me, which I think is correct, that the population of that region is bigger than that of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I believe that the area is bigger geographically than two of those three countries, and the distance—I am often reminded—from Scilly to Bristol is greater than that from Bristol to Scotland. I hope that I am indicating that a common, one-size-fits-all answer is entirely inappropriate.
I want to make three last points.
Sir Peter Soulsby (Leicester, South) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Simon Hughes: No, I am conscious of the time. I respect the hon. Gentleman's interest, but will he please bear with me?
The regions are hugely different too. The north-east, which has 30 MPs, has fewer than half as many as the south-east, yet we are saying that the Committee must have the same structure, the same number of MPs involved and, yes, the same blessed Labour majority.
Sir Peter Soulsby: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Simon Hughes: All right, go on.
Sir Peter Soulsby: I thank my fellow member of the Modernisation Committee for giving way. Does he not accept that the strength and credibility of Select Committees are enormously enhanced by the fact that when they are critical of the Government, as they often are, either directly or indirectly, that happens despite them having a Government majority? [ Interruption. ] I am making a serious point. Does he not accept that if they are seen as being merely partisan, which they will be if they have majorities of the sort that he suggests, they will easily be dismissed by the Government in a most unfortunate way?
Simon Hughes: I have heard disingenuous arguments, but that is about the most disingenuous I have ever heard. No, I do not accept that for a moment. The worst thing is that, having set up this structure, which we support in principle, we will end up losing all credibility, because it will distort political representation. I will tell the hon. Gentleman what makes things worse. He will have read the reports; I have one here, written by Patrick Wintour in The Guardian of Tuesday this week. The headline is, "Chief whip plans to punish rebellious Labour backbenchers", and the report states:
"The government was under fire last night after it emerged that the new chief whip, Nick Brown, is proposing that any Labour MP voting against the government in the past year will not be recommended to sit on all-party parliamentary select committees."
There are different views around the House as to whether that is a bribe or a punishment, but the point is that Select Committees should have the independence of mind to have on them the people who will form a view in the interests of those whom they represent. The Government are abusing that, first, by ensuring that there is a Government majority and, secondly, by then saying that they will put on the Select Committees, if they can find them, only people who will support the Government.
This is a very sad day: when we could have been working out together—in good time and with consensus—a way forward to achieve proper regional accountability, we have, in the end, the Government using the steamroller of their majority and the payroll vote.
I have a final postscript. I share the Leader of the House's view that it is not appropriate to deal with London today, although that is the only issue on which we share common ground. London has some devolved government and the London assembly. It is therefore appropriate that London should be dealt with on a different occasion and in a different way.
Mr. Andrew Pelling (Croydon, Central) (Ind): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Simon Hughes: No.
As for the rest, I hope that colleagues will vote for many of the amendments on the Order Paper. At least then we can rescue the Government from their mistakes. Otherwise, we will be completely abusing the opportunity that we have to provide decent regional accountability.
3.35 pm
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): I have tabled three amendments. The first draws attention to the fact that there is an injunction, as it were, that the Committees should not meet very often. That is absurd. If I were serving on such a Committee, I would not be constrained by that request—or, rather, hope—but would want to stretch the envelope to the maximum to ensure that the Committee was at least of some value. The proposal is nonsense and shows that the idea has not been fully thought through. I will not divide the House on that amendment, but I mention it to highlight my other amendments. If I am right in my judgment that the envelope will not be stretched, why should we pay the Chairmen of those Committees the same as we pay the Chairmen of departmental Select Committees? The idea is simply bonkers.
In addition, there is the high payroll vote, which has already been referred to—I discovered in 2005 that 144 hon. Members were not on the basic MP's pay, and the figure must be a lot higher now. I urge hon. Members to reflect on that, because it is very unhealthy to say the least. There is also the paradox of the Deputy Leader of the House, who is not paid a bean, advocating that Chairmen should be paid. Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his salary for his friends. The growth of the payroll vote and the patronage that goes with it is very unhealthy.
I hope to divide the House on my amendment dealing with that issue, because, even if I am wrong in my judgment that those Chairmen should not be paid at all, if the House accepts my amendment, there can be a period of reflection. Perhaps they should be paid a per diem, but not on the same rate as the Chairs of the departmental Committees. I hope that I will take the House with me on that.
My second concern of substance is the provision in the proposed Standing Order that would allow a regional Committee to invite
"specified elected councillors from the region in respect of which it is appointed...to attend and participate".
Have we no pride? I fought hard to get elected to this place. It was five general elections before I got elected. I am proud to be a Member of Parliament and my duties as a Member of Parliament are indivisible. Councillors' jobs are very important, but we should not blur the issues by bringing the two together. I urge hon. Members to stand up for Parliament and be jealous of their rights and privileges.
Mr. Harper: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Andrew Mackinlay: No.
Privileges are important, because what happens under parliamentary privilege? I can be admonished by the House if I abuse parliamentary privilege. We are self-regulating. How can you deal with someone who is not a Member of this House, but who abuses parliamentary privilege, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Will we have a separate register of interests for these people? The idea has not been thought through, which is why I hope we will reject it, if for no other reason than that.
When I was a young councillor, I would have been proud to serve on a parliamentary Committee—I would have given my right hand to do so—but I was very partisan and saw it as my mission to get elected to this place. We can imagine the councillors coming in, taking on the Minister here and the official there, but that will diminish what I hope we try to do, which is to leave our party allegiances at the Committee Room door. I do not know whether there are any Scottish or Welsh Members in the Chamber, but if having elected councillors is good for me in Essex, I shall similarly be proposing that some people from Scottish local authorities and assemblies should serve on the Scottish Select Committee, too. What is being proposed really is mad, so I ask hon. Members to join me in the Lobby against those two proposals.
My final point is about Members of Parliament who are not from the region concerned serving on, say, the south-west regional Committee. I have asked myself, "Could I possibly do this?" In my judgment, I would have to be stark staring bonkers to go and serve on a Committee covering a region of which my constituency formed no part. Surely we are all busy. I must say that those who sign up will do so with full knowledge and consent, and will be subject to criticism by their electors. Their electors will ask: "What the devil are you doing focusing on that region and not ours?"
Earlier, one of the Whips muttered to me, "What about Ireland?" That is a different situation, because the question of Northern Ireland is demonstrably, because of its history, a United Kingdom matter. However, when people go from one region to another, they will be subject to criticism. They must remember that they have to agree under Standing Orders to serve on a Committee, so they cannot blame the Whips or hide behind them, or excuse themselves. They will have signed up, so they can be subject to criticism.
3.40 pm
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire) (Con): I rise to speak to amendment (a) to motion 7. I note that because of the guillotine motion, there are only 30 minutes for all Opposition Back Benchers to speak in this debate.
The amendment would abolish the Regional Affairs Committee. Colleagues could be excused for not knowing that there was one. Standing Orders require one to be established, but the Government have not done so in this Parliament. Week after week at meetings of the Committee of Selection, we wait for the Government to propose members of the Committee, yet nothing happens. The Government clearly must feel that the Committee serves no useful purpose, so I hope that they will accept the amendment.
The Regional Affairs Committee, to remind colleagues, was applauded when it was introduced. In 2000, the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), said:
"We believe that such a forum will add usefully to the procedures of the House".—[ Official Report, 11 April 2000; Vol. 367, c. 295.]
The Committee has been so useful that it has not met since April 2003, which indicates that it is a wholly dispensable part of our constitution. The amendment would simply put it out of its misery.
That is relevant to today's debate, because it shows that the Government have form in coming up with the wrong answer to the regional question. We told the Government eight years ago that it would not work. In a powerful speech, the then shadow Leader of the House—me—said that the Government had come up with the wrong answer. That debate ended in the small hours of the morning of 12 April, which shows how long ago it was. We lost by 60 votes, which was a good result at the time. That proposal came from straight from the Government; it was not even laundered through the Modernisation Committee, as the proposals that we are debating have been.
That brings me to my second point. When the Prime Minister announced the new committees in the "Governance of Britain" Green Paper, he said:
"Consideration of changes to the way the House of Commons operates is ultimately a matter for the House itself".
However, if we turn to page 42 of the Modernisation Committee report, what do we find? It states:
"Draft Report (Regional Accountability), proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read."
Who is the Chairman? The Leader of the House is the Chairman. We can see on page 52 that the Committee tied, and that the Chairman declared herself for the Ayes. That does not strike me as leaving the matter to the House to decide. Rather, it strikes me as the Government obliging the House to accept something that it does not want.
We then have the ultimate of absurdities, the Government response, which begins:
Who presented this report to Parliament? It was none other than the Leader of the House—it is straight out of Gilbert and Sullivan. Frankly, it is an abuse of the Select Committee procedure. Every other Select Committee is chaired by a Back Bencher and contains no Ministers, because Select Committees are instruments of the House to hold the Government to account. The Modernisation Committee is an instrument that the Government are using. That could weaken our ability to hold them to account because of the impact on existing Select Committees, which brings me to my third and final point.
A little-read document, "Sessional Returns", shows how the existing pressure on the time of colleagues affects their attendance on Select Committees. The average attendance for the most prestigious Committee—the Public Accounts Committee—for the last year for which figures exist, was 47.2 per cent. So, for most of the meetings, most of the members were not there. I say that not in a spirit of criticism of colleagues, but as a statement of fact. There is a lot of pressure on our time because the Government have packed everything into two days of the week. The Regulatory Reform Committee manages 42.3 per cent. attendance, and five of the 14 members attended no meetings at all in the last Session for which there are records. The figures for the Environmental Audit Committee are 44.5 per cent. and for the Trade and Industry Committee 50.2 per cent. For the Scottish Affairs Committee and the Welsh Affairs Committees—those most like the new regional Select Committees—the figures are 56 per cent. and 52 per cent. Where, then, are the folk sitting on these new Select Committees coming from; and if they turn up, what will happen to the existing ones?
I, too, read in The Guardian that the Government Chief Whip is going punish folk who vote against the Government by refusing to put them on Select Committees. He has got it exactly wrong: the punishment is being put on a regional Select Committee, and for voting against the Government twice, it is being put on a regional Select Committee for a region other than the one the Member represents! Many other arguments cut across existing Select Committees, and regional Ministers do not have responsibility for the all the budgets or all the issues. The propositions before us are a nonsense, and I hope the House throws them out at 4.18.
3.46 pm
Mr. Neil Turner (Wigan) (Lab): The Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) made a very good case for having regional Select Committees on the grounds that they will scrutinise the work of Government regional bodies. The case was well made, but there is another important issue that is too easily forgotten. The agenda of bringing our regions closer together—for example, making it possible for the north-west and the west midlands to have the same "gross value added" as London and the south-east—is very important. To make that regional agenda happen means more than looking into regional bodies, quangos and other Government agencies, as it is also about looking into business, the voluntary sector and the whole community in the regions concerned. I believe that regional Select Committees have an important job to do in bringing all those elements together, ensuring that we have a coherent and cohesive tale to tell. That would help to bring the GVA of our region, currently below the national average, up to it.
The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) spoke about the £2 million cost. It is easy to look at the costs, but what about the benefits? With an increase of merely 0.1 per cent. in the GVA of the north-west, that £2 million would pale into insignificance. As we scrutinise these various bodies, we need to ensure that they become better and take better decisions. The likelihood is that, as a result of better scrutiny, the regional development agencies, the learning and skills councils and other local bodies that my colleagues have mentioned will actually perform better.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): Speaking as a Member who is unlikely to be put on a regional Select Committee, may I ask my friend whether a better job of work might not be done through a regional Grand Committee, which was advocated by the shadow Leader of the House?
Mr. Turner: No, I do not think it would. It would be too large and unwieldy, unable to do the job properly.
We are sometimes seen as being out of touch, which makes it important that regional Select Committees meet in their respective regions. It is essential that we take Parliament out of here and take it to the people; let us have meetings there, so that people can properly see the work we do and value it that much more.
Another positive factor is that these regional Select Committees are non-departmental. We all know that health problems, economic problems, transport and skills problems impact on each other. It is important to avoid the silos of Departments, which can detract from our ability to look across at the issues and come up with the solutions. The regional Select Committees, in being non-departmental, will have that ability to look across the region and provide solutions that involve all the people of the region—the quangos, the outside bodies, businesses, the trade unions and so forth. That is an important innovation, and once we have some experience of these regional Select Committees up and running, we can think about extending the concept further. We could look more into scrutinising issues rather than Departments.
Finally, let me say that the regional Select Committees must be proactive. We should not just consider what has been done and the decisions that have been made. The regional agenda is so important that the Committees will need to be involved with the issues at the heart of it. They will need to be proactive and involve people, so that we can put everything together and establish a regional agenda that includes what the region needs for the future.
3.50 pm
Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): Let me establish straight away that I intend to vote against regional Select Committees but to support regional Grand Committees, and that I think the Modernisation Committee should have supported them in its report to the House. That might, as the Leader of the House would say, have constituted only a halfway house towards
what—for whatever purpose—she wishes to achieve, but I believe it would have indicated whether or not Committees of this kind were required.
I can tell the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) that I shall certainly support his amendments. They are sound: he is a House of Commons man, and he has given considerable thought to them. I also supported the speech of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), which I thought extremely balanced; and of course I supported every word—without exception—uttered by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young).
Let me say to the Leader of the House that I only wish some Labour Members—particularly the right hon. and learned Lady herself and her deputy—would take account of some experience. Perhaps I cannot claim much experience myself, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), I have been in the House for more than 37 years, and I have served on Committees since 1975, so I do have some.
I chaired the Select Committee on Health and suffered as a result of the actions of my own party, but I make no play of that during this debate. I have also been the founder Conservative member on the Modernisation Committee, which the Leader of the House now chairs, and for two Parliaments I chaired the Procedure Committee. I therefore hope the Leader of the House will accept that I have an understanding of the way in which the House operates and also of its procedures.
My position is nothing to do with a party-political position. I have one objective for the remainder of my time in the House, and that is to restore to the Floor of the House and to Back Benchers greater authority over the way in which the House operates and spends its time. I am therefore deeply unhappy about what the Government have proposed.
I have to say, using a rather unfortunate word, that I believe that these proposals are a sheer abortion. I believe that they constitute an abuse of the House. I believe that little thought has been given to the membership of the regional Select Committees and to all the problems raised by the hon. Member for Thurrock, in his excellent speech, relating to the addition of councillors to the Select Committees. And how are the Committees to be comprised, given that political parties have very few Members in particular regions?
Let me say to the right hon. and learned Lady, who holds a number of positions, that I believe that these matters have not been thought through and clearly should have been thought through, not only by her and those who advise her but, to a greater extent, by members of the Modernisation Committee.
Mr. Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that in many regions, such as my own in the east of England, almost every Labour Member is already an office-holder? We shall have a whole lot shipped in from the north-east, while others from elsewhere will not be made Committee members because they are not of a suitable kind.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am inclined to agree with my right hon. Friend.
We want to appeal to the public out there. We do not want to increase disillusionment. However, I believe that what the Modernisation Committee is proposing, mainly on the basis of the casting vote of the Leader of the House, will increase disillusionment. For instance, in this debate we are being allowed a mere five minutes in which to express our opinions on fundamental changes to the House. I repeat that my whole purpose is to return to this House some independence and integrity from the Executive, so I hope that, even at this late stage, the Leader of the House will be prepared to think again on some of these proposals. They are ill-judged, they will serve the House badly and they will not restore public confidence in this place and our role as representative Members of Parliament.
3.55 pm
Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon) (Lab): I rise to speak to the amendments standing in my name, which are supported by 14 London Members in total and particularly address the London dimension. I am pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House discussed that in her opening remarks, and I am grateful for the constructive discussions that we have had over the past couple of days to try to resolve the position of London.
London is the biggest region; it contains 7.2 million people and is growing. It is different from the rest of the country; it has the Mayor and the Greater London authority. There remains a major role for central Government to play; there are a large number of non-devolved areas and a large number of areas where they work in partnership with other agencies. There is an overwhelming need to ensure proper co-ordination of Government key programmes, and that can be done effectively only through parliamentary scrutiny provided by a London Select Committee. There will be no difficulty with political balance in a London Committee, because London is one of the few regions that has plenty of Members from all the parties, which will ensure that we can staff it ourselves. Our area has the Government office for London—other regions have similar bodies—which also ought to be accountable to Parliament. We have our own Minister for London, and he ought to be accountable to us, as should his two assistant Ministers.
London is different: it accounts for 16.7 per cent. of the UK's economic output; and economic difficulties, such as those facing us now, have a particularly severe impact on the City and financial services jobs. In many ways, the downturn's impact in London is different from that in the rest of the country. We also need to address the issues associated with deprivation in London. Four of the top eight—or the bottom eight, depending on how one looks at this—most deprived authorities in England are in London. The city has serious child poverty; 50 per cent. of children in inner London are in low-income households. The benefits regime operates very differently in London, because of the high cost of living, the way in which housing benefit works and the low take-up of tax credit. The Government office for London programmes, the new deal for communities, the delivery of decent homes and neighbourhood renewal and regeneration are all issues on which we should have a say.
The issue of health also needs to be considered. London has its own regional strategic health authority— NHS London—and the Government office for London examines inequalities in life expectancy and infant mortality. What is contained in the huge change that NHS London is introducing must be subject to detailed scrutiny. The Darzi review deals with issues of general practitioner access, the controversial polyclinics, the reconfiguration of hospital services, the potential separation of elected and acute services, and the possible controversial closures of certain general hospitals. We must also consider the joint commissioning being organised among the primary care trusts and the, unfortunately low, take-up of some of the immunisation programmes. The PCTs have local authority scrutiny panels, but we do not have a similar arrangement at the strategic, London-wide level, which a London Select Committee could provide.
Transport for London deals with buses and the tube, but the enormous £5.5 billion Thameslink modernisation programme comes under the Department for Transport, not TFL. There is a new, enormous involvement from central Government in the Crossrail programme to consider and, of course, only yesterday we debated a third runway at Heathrow—that central Government policy decision will have a major impact on London across the board. Then there is the Olympics to consider, in which the Government have a major role to play. We have our own Minister for the Olympics, who ought to be accountable to Parliament through a Select Committee arrangement.
The case for a Select Committee for London has been strongly made. A London Committee does not have to follow exactly the same model as the other Committees, and it is, thus, right that we should consider it in the context of devolution to London. Special problems face London, and I hope that the Leader of the House's consultation on this matter will be short and sharp. I hope that she will be able to come back to the House in the early new year with concrete proposals to ensure that London gets the representation and the scrutiny of the Minister, of the Government office for London and of all the other bodies that we should be able to achieve for London Members in this House.
3.59 pm
Robert Key (Salisbury) (Con): I am pretty sceptical about whether the arrangements will work, and that will no doubt be reflected in the way in which I vote tonight. However, I commend the Government for recognising that we have a problem and for at least attempting to put it right.
In the county constituency of Salisbury, we tend to take the long view. The first Members of Parliament were sent here from Salisbury in 1265, in 1346 eight Members of Parliament represented the area that I now represent and until 1832 we still had more than one MP—the democratic representation of my area has changed.
One or two things have been imposed on the area. The first is the strange and arbitrary idea of where the south-west starts and ends. Indeed, all the regional boundaries are pretty artificial. They were a world war two attempt to divide up the country for administrative reasons, and I regret that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), when he was Deputy Prime Minister, did not decide to rearrange the regions. I, for example, feel myself to be a man of Wessex rather than of the west country. I have always regarded Bristol as being in the west midlands —[ Interruption. ] My hon. Friends laugh, but that is the whole problem. Those who represent the south-west, like me, and who know it well fully understand how remote it feels to be in Penzance while life-affecting decisions are taken in Bristol, which could be on the moon as far as most people are concerned. We have a problem.
Having been born in Plymouth, having lived in Salisbury and Truro and having spent the larger part of my life in Salisbury, I understand that even within our regions there are huge variations in how our services from central Government are delivered, what expectations we have and what our people have to offer the nation. One thing that is absolutely clear is that we should make every possible attempt to ensure that this House remains the Parliament of England. I do not wish to see any other Parliament established anywhere calling itself an English Parliament. That would be appalling and would go against 1,000 years of our history.
We have to try to work out a way of ensuring that there is a greater sense of identity and empowerment and better delivery of services. I recognise that, when I was a local government Minister, my noble Friend Lord Heseltine, as Secretary of State, invented the idea of regional Government offices. My right hon. Friends the Members for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who are sitting beside me, know more about that than me, because they had related responsibilities. However, there was never any intention that there would be elected regional assemblies. I regard what is happening today as a sort of revenge for the fact that the regional assemblies did not work.
We have to be very careful that we do not cause more trouble than it is all worth. I am keen to see that we give a fair wind to some of these ideas, if only to prove that they are wrong. We must somehow recognise, as a large number of right hon. and hon. Members from all parties have suggested, that there are real problems with our identity. We cannot devolve responsibility for matters such as fire and rescue services upwards to a regional body from our local authorities without having local accountability for them, which is just one example of many.
I am sceptical whether this proposal will work, but it is an attempt that we should not completely write off. Unless we have a better suggestion, we should perhaps be a little cautious in our approach.
4.3 pm
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key), not least because I have discovered for the first time that Bristol is part of the west midlands, something that had passed me by until now.
I broadly welcome the proposals, for many of the reasons that my hon. Friends have given. I want to offer a word of reassurance and to raise a couple of matters of concern. The welcome that I would like to give the proposals follows on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) said. I get the impression that my constituents think that I have three roles that they want me to take up. The first is as a local advocate—a local champion in the local area. That works in some cases, not in others, but it is generally clear. The second is a national role, whether it involves raising their concerns on a national stage or participating in the national formulation of legislation, national scrutiny and so on. The element that is missing is the regional and sub-regional issues that affect my constituents, in which the local MP has an unclear role, at best. That is where there is a gap.
In the past, that was occasionally changed by force of circumstance. For me, the gap was partly bridged a few years ago by the Rover crisis at the Longbridge plant in my constituency. A taskforce was set up that involved stakeholders in the region and local MPs, and that began to bridge some of the gaps that I have identified.
I think that the creation of regional Ministers—and now the councils of regional Ministers, and so on—has also begun to bridge some of those gaps, although there is still a gap in accountability at regional level. That is a problem. The regional Select Committees cannot be the only remedy, but they will help to address the problem.
It is important that we retain the Select Committee principle, because they will need the inquisitorial approach that such Committees can bring to bear. I do not think that they should be an alternative to the Grand Committees—I believe that it is quite a good idea to have both structures—but we should not lose the inquisitorial approach.
There are some issues that I want to flag up, but first I want to reassure the House about the question of duplication between the roles of different committees. Yes, there will be duplication, but I am not scared of that. By our nature, we already duplicate all sorts of things. Overlaps exist—regionally and locally, regionally and nationally and even between Departments.
I am a member of the International Development Committee, whose job overlaps with that of the Foreign Affairs Committee and, increasingly, with that of the Defence Committee. Issues to do with the Post Office affect the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and often the Department for Work and Pensions as well. Another example would be the way in which issues to do with climate change and energy overlap Departments. In addition, we already have the Public Accounts Committee, which by its very nature is cross cutting and overlaps the work of other Committees. Therefore, we should not be too cautious about this proposal. Will the result be messy sometimes? Yes, absolutely | 
