By Tony Grew - 11th February 2011
A Conservative MP has said the way in which parliamentary private secretaries are expected to restrict their public comments is "a Faustian pact".
In an article for The Guardian, Totnes MP Sarah Wollaston said she was offered a PPS position but turned it down.
"In return for the vague illusion of having the minister's ear, I would have had to resign from the health select committee, agree to never speak on health matters and to always vote with the government," she said.
"It turns out that about 150 out of 364 coalition MPs are on the so-called 'payroll vote', meaning that because of positions they hold, they have agreed to always vote with the government. Included among those 150 are around 45 who work as a PPS."
Wollaston, a GP by profession, was the first Tory candidate selected in an open primary.
She said that she could not justify to her constituents taking a PPS role.
"How could I have looked them in the eye if I had signed away the ability to speak about the very subject for which I was elected?
"Ministers should have collective responsibility, but why the need to silence their PPS?
"When the number of MPs shrinks to 600, the impact of the payroll vote will be even more serious."
Woolaston's independent stance was raised at business questions yesterday.
Bernard Jenkin (Con, Harwich and North Essex) called for a short debate about the role of the committee of selection
He asked Commons leader Sir George Young:
"Will he confirm that he is aware that one of our hon. friends, who was elected to this House to major on the health service, was apparently asked by a whip and a minister to decline from tabling any amendments or speaking in the Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, otherwise she would not be appointed to that committee?
"I understand that she has not been appointed to that committee."
Jenkin added: "We are all grown-ups; we know that whipping happens, but are there not limits to how much whips and ministers should be seeking to influence the scrutiny process, and does not this make the case for making the committee of selection elected rather than full of people appointed by the usual channels?"
Sir George Young said he heard Woolaston's speech in Westminster Hall last week "when she shared with those there her disappointment at not being appointed to that public bill committee".
He added:
"Speaking personally, I think that every hon. member should have the right to put their case to the committee of selection that they should be considered for service on a public bill committee, and then it is a matter for the committee of selection to decide.
"I personally would welcome the presence on the committee of selection of not just business managers but representatives of backbenchers."
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.