---

Administration Committee

As far as I am concerned, this is not a personal matter. I have nothing against the Government Whips, and relatively little against my own. I strongly object, however, to the time that it has taken to reconstitute the Select Committees, and to the manner in which it is proposed this afternoon to do so. My starting point has been articulated by several right hon. and hon. Members throughout the House—the significance of the Committees. The Committees have an absolutely invaluable role, if only we dared to recognise and demonstrate the fact. That role is scrutiny of the Executive, of the quality of their policies, of the effectiveness of their administration and of their expenditure of taxpayer’s money. When the context for the debate is set out in those simple and unmistakeable terms, it seems to me to underline the House’s criminal neglect of its responsibility to get the Committees up and running earlier than we have done. It is, I think, 69 days since the general election, and tomorrow it will be 10 weeks since polling day. It is 57 days since the Loyal Address and the opening of the debate on the Queen’s Speech. To those who say, ““Well, we haven’t done too badly this time; the process could have been more protracted than it has proved. We did a bit better on this occasion than we did on the last””, I say that that is unduly complacent. Frankly, we could have done a lot better, and I make no bones about the fact that in apportioning blame, I attribute the bulk to the system and to those charged with its administration—apparently, they are only too happy to be so charged—the Whips. It is wrong that the composition of Committees whose purpose is to scrutinise the Executive should be determined by representatives of that Executive. Members who know me know that I try to be dispassionate and fair-minded. I am not interested in making a purely party political point, any more than the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) is; frankly, the issues are far too salient and pressing for that. Fundamentally, this is a clash between Front Benchers and Back Benchers in all parts of the House. I hope that Government Back Benchers will not cavil or object when I say that the inappropriateness of Executive control is particularly acute where the Government are concerned. The reason why is simple. Government Whips choose who scrutinises other representatives of the Government. The Government run the country and introduce policies, and they have a range of powers that, frankly, do not apply to the Opposition, so it is particularly serious when Government Whips decide who scrutinises their ministerial friends and colleagues. That said, I do not in any sense think that the representatives of Opposition Front Benchers can be exonerated from responsibility. Members know perfectly well that many of these matters are determined on a consensual basis behind the scenes, between what we call ““the usual channels””. So that we do not talk in terms that mean absolutely nothing to people outside this place—who think when we refer to the usual channels, ““What on earth are they talking about?—we ought to make it explicitly clear that we are talking about the Government Whips Office and the Opposition Whips Office. It is quite wrong for Opposition Whips to determine who participates in Select Committees. I have to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker—despite your vast and varied experience in this place, I feel certain that you will be shocked by the revelation that I am about to vouchsafe—that one Opposition Whip said recently to me that he personally was keen that a particular Member, who had previously been, surprise, surprise, in the Whips Office, should be appointed to a given Select Committee with a view, perhaps, if all went well, to that individual’s becoming the Chairman of said Committee. He gave the following reason. ““We think it important””—I am not quite sure whom he meant by ““we””, but presumably he was speaking for Front Benchers—““to strengthen co-operation between that Select Committee and the relevant shadow Secretary of State and his team.”” That strikes me as absolutely wrong. Just as it is wrong for the Government to seek to ““nobble”” a Select Committee in order to defuse criticism of the Executive, so it is wrong for Opposition Front Benchers to seek to steer membership or chairmanship of the Committees in a greater, lesser or different way than would otherwise have been the case, in order to oppose the Government.