---

Home Affairs

What started as a squall is becoming a storm. It is important for the Leader of the House to realise that this could be a serious matter if it goes wrong, and it would reflect badly on the House. It is important that we pause, that the right hon. and learned Lady reflects, and that in the end she accepts the growing, strongly expressed view that the motion should be withdrawn before we vote on it. There are Standing Orders that govern us, which have been agreed by the House. The Standing Orders governing Select Committees include No. 121(2), which states:"““No motion shall be made for the nomination of members of select committees appointed under the standing orders of this House (with the exception of the Liaison Committee, the Committee of Selection, the Committee on Standards and Privileges and any Committee established under a temporary standing order), or for their discharge, unless””—" there are two conditions—"““(a) notice of the motion has been given at least two sitting days previously, and""(b) the motion is made on behalf of the Committee of Selection by the chairman or another member of the committee.””" The Leader of the House is seeking our agreement to dispense with two of the rules we normally impose on ourselves. The first is that there are at least two days’ notice, for very good reason, so that any Member with an interest in the matter can be present, can speak if they want to and can vote if they want to. That is not possible if the motion appears on the day of the vote. There are some colleagues who, for perfectly good family reasons, will not be here today because they may have started their holiday with their children, or whatever. The second rule is that the motion be brought by somebody who acts independently on behalf of the Committee of Selection—the Chairman or another Member on behalf of the Committee of Selection. That is not happening. The motion does not come from the body that meets every week, or more often if necessary, to choose Members for all Committees. It is coming from the Leader of the House. I have not heard a single argument, with respect to her, that justifies either of those breaches of the rules. Let me explain to the right hon. and learned Lady why the arguments that she has made do not wash and do not work. The Prime Minister, having had 10 years to prepare, was well equipped to make early announcements of his Cabinet and his Ministers. Every Minister—Cabinet Minister, Minister of State and Under-Secretary of State—was appointed by the end of the first full week of his term of office. That took us to the end of the first week of July. No other appointments have been made since then, except in the other place, where there were a couple of slightly belated take-ups of appointments of the more controversial nominees. Those who were appointed to the Cabinet immediately stopped functioning in their Select Committee. All who were appointed gave up that function. The Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), gave up serving on the Home Affairs Committee then. The Home Affairs Committee has not stopped work, however, since the change of Prime Minister or Government. It has continued to sit, to meet, to take evidence and to interrogate people. Indeed, the new Home Secretary appeared before it yesterday. The Committee has 13 serving members, who are described in the report published on 10 July. They are the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon), my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne), the hon. Members for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), for Burton (Mrs. Dean), for Newark (Patrick Mercer), for Luton, South (Margaret Moran), and for Dover (Gwyn Prosser), my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), and the hon. Members for Reading, West (Martin Salter), for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). The report then says:"““The following members were also members of the committee during the inquiry:""Mr. John Denham MP (Labour, Southampton, Itchen) (former Chairman)""Mr. Richard Spring MP (Conservative, West Suffolk)””." The implication is that the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen gave up being Chairman, as we had widely and generally understood, and as would usually have been expected. The implication is also that he has given up serving on the Committee. He may not have been formally discharged, but he has certainly ceased to serve. The Committee, however, has carried on its work. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who has long had a reputation for an interest in home affairs matters, has been elected as its acting Chairman. Twelve other colleagues, of whom seven are Labour colleagues from the party that, as agreed through the usual channels, produces the Chairman, would be available and able to serve were the hon. Member for Walsall, North unable to do so. They, too, have long had reputations for interest in and commitment to the subject. There are four Conservative colleagues with such an interest and long service and two of my colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who is a long-serving member of the Committee. There is no reason in the world why it has to have another member in order to do any work between now and October. At the moment, it has not even fixed a programme of meetings for the recess. It has one meeting fixed, for tomorrow, to elect a Chairman, but no others. We are being asked to nominate somebody in place of somebody who has left for a meeting to elect a Chairman and nothing else. That is complete nonsense. It is an abuse of the system and of the processes of the House, and it would be so even were the nomination not controversial—which it is, as it happens. People can take different views about the merits of the nomination of the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). That makes it important that the House has an opportunity to reflect on the matter. I have had representations to the effect that it is an inappropriate choice, although that is not a view that I had formed personally. I was asked to ask the Leader of the House if it was being done so that the right hon. Gentleman could be the new Chairman. Is that the Government’s plan? [Hon. Members: ““It is.””] Implicitly, that is what was said, and my understanding is that that is precisely the plan. The Leader of the House said that Select Committee business is not for her, but she needs to be honest with us as to whether the Government’s plan—not hers—is that the new nominee should be the Chairman. In any case, we have plenty of opportunity to debate whether the right hon. Gentleman should be a member on the first day back in October, or any other day. I hope that the Leader of the House realises that it would seriously undermine the authority, competence and service of colleagues on the Committee were she to tell the House to say that the hon. Member for Walsall, North and the other hon. Ladies and Gentlemen from various parties were not competent to carry on the business of the Home Affairs Committee between now and October. That is not an acceptable proposition. They have served on the Committee, they have produced very good reports, and they were well served as Chairman by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen, who gave it a very good reputation and profile and whom I commend and thank for his service. He is widely admired and respected. However, it is nonsense to argue that nobody else in the list of current members, including the hon. Member for Walsall, North, is competent or capable to carry out its business, whatever it may be—at the moment, there is none—over the next two and half months.