On 16 July 2001, Tony Blair’s government suffered its first defeat in the House of Commons, as scores of its own backbenchers joined forces with opposition parties to reject attempts to remove two independently-minded select committee chairs.

***

The Labour government was re-elected with a 167-seat majority at the 2001 general election in a second successive landslide. In the wake of this victory, Downing Street moved to install its preferred candidates as chairs of key select committees – using the traditional system where membership was determined by the party whips.

The government’s proposed slate notably excluded Gwyneth Dunwoody and Donald Anderson, the formidable chairs of the transport committee and foreign affairs committee in the 1997-2001 parliament.

Dunwoody in particular was famous for her clashes with the Blair leadership. She criticised the government’s part-privatisation of national air traffic control and the London Underground, as well as its continued subsidies to Railtrack. Shortly before the 2001 election, Dunwoody’s committee published a report calling it “unacceptable that the taxpayer should be compelled to bail out a private monopoly company which has acted so incompetently, without taking any stake in the company in return.”

Anderson’s committee had criticised the former Europe minister, Keith Vaz, for lacking a “detailed grasp of the policy issues” relating to the Balkans. The foreign affairs committee chair was reportedly due to be replaced by Chris Smith, who was sacked as culture secretary shortly after the 2001 general election.

The committee reshuffle, reportedly orchestrated by Hilary Armstrong as chief whip, was widely interpreted as an attempt to oust parliamentarians known for their robust scrutiny in favour of more compliant figures. Leader of the House Robin Cook appeared to distance himself from the manoeuvre, however, referring to the existence of “competing advice.”

The furore even invited a rare intervention from Baroness Boothroyd, who served as speaker of the House of Commons from 1992 to 2000. Boothroyd, a former Labour MP, urged MPs to reassert their independence by reinstating the independent-minded committee chairs.

Speaking on 13 July, shortly after the reshuffle was declared, the former speaker stated: “It seems that the government is manipulating parliament. Select committees are not an arm of government. They are a mechanism of parliament to scrutinise government.

“The two people concerned have huge reputations in this house and have won great respect for the jobs they have done as chairman as well as outside the house.

“It is outrageous that the government cannot stand the heat of a bit of criticism. This is what their jobs should be about – to speak out when there is a need to speak out.”

The commons considered the nominations three days later on 16 July.

***

The proceedings began with a procedural motion to limit the debate to just over three hours. Conservative MP Eric Forth accused the government of an “arbitrary truncation” of the debate to avoid an “awkward or embarrassing” discussion. Conservative MP Douglas Hogg branded the time limit a “travesty of democracy.” Despite these objections, the government’s timetable passed by 290 votes to 160.

During the main debate, Cook confirmed that Labour MPs and government ministers would have a free vote on the nominations, stating that the matter was “for the House, not for a collective decision by the government.”

This announcement amounted to a concession on the part of the government in the face of significant discontent.

John McWilliam, the chairman of the commons committee of selection, told the House that his committee had made “none” of the changes to the recommendations provided by the party whips.

Labour MP Tony Wright responded: “I am getting a little confused. If the committee of selection does not select, what does it do?”

Conservative MP George Young, a member of the selection committee, revealed that names were produced “like rabbits out of a hat” in meetings that lasted only minutes, describing the body as having been “captured by the [whips].”

Conservative MP Patrick Cormack described Anderson’s sacking as an “act of malice or spite”.

Conservative MP Angela Browning praised Dunwoody as a “doughty fighter” and a “great parliamentarian.”

Labour MP Alan Williams argued that it was an “insult” to past committee members to treat chairmanships as “palliatives for injured pride” or compensation for former ministers.

Dunwoody, in her contribution, said she was “astonished” by her effective sacking.

She rejected the suggestion that scrutiny amounted to disloyalty, telling the House: “I do not undermine my government by suggesting that they are not like the pope – infallible… [nor] if I dare, as a committee member… to produce a report that examines their actions in detail.”

She argued that “what the select committees do matters”, warning that the commons “must never become a great morass of people doing what they are told not by the electorate but by the executive.”

She asserted her “faith in the ability of the Labour Party and a Labour government to take just decisions”, and that ministers should not be “frightened of the role of select committees in checking what they have done, what they are doing and what they intend to do.”

Anderson questioned what “signal” the government’s actions were sending to the public, arguing that committees “must be seen to be independent if parliament is to enhance its role.”

A substantial Labour rebellion followed. In all, 308 MPs voted against Dunwoody’s exclusion, with 221 in favour. Andersen’s exclusion was defeated by 301 votes to 232. As many as 100 Labour MPs were said to have rebelled in the face of Blair’s perceived “control freakery”.

In the wake of the votes, Cook delivered a business statement acknowledging the “will of the House” and promising revised proposals.

The revised motions were passed on 19 July, officially restoring Anderson to the foreign affairs committee and Dunwoody to the transport, local government and the regions committee.

On 20 July, shortly before the House rose for the summer recess, Cook issued a written answer committing the modernisation committee to a comprehensive review of the selection process. He stated the intention was to ensure “transparency” and to “increase the powers and enhance the status of select committees.”

***

The outcome was deeply embarrassing for the government. Blair’s critics celebrated the result as a victory for parliamentary scrutiny in the face of a significant majority – and a defeat for executive overreach.

Speaking in the wake of the results, Anderson said the votes represented a “rubicon decision with no going back”.

He stated: “I hope the whips would have learnt a lesson from this. It really is a peasants’ revolt and a great day for parliament. Parliament said in effect to the government, ‘With all your majority you cannot ride roughshod over parliament.’”

Angela Browning, the shadow leader of the House, said: “Appointments should not be a matter of patronage for the whips’ offices. I welcome the watershed that has been reached. We have reached it because of genuine feeling on both sides of the House.”

The episode fuelled the growing movement for reform of how committee chairs and members were selected.

In February 2002, Cook published a report through the modernisation committee proposing to permanently strip the whips of their power to nominate committee members. The central recommendation was the creation of a new “committee of nomination” to be chaired by the chairman of ways and means (the senior deputy speaker) and comprising several senior backbenchers.

Introducing the proposals on 14 May, Cook argued that select committees should be “free from party influence, particularly the party representing the executive.” The proposal was supported by Liberal Democrat MP Paul Tyler, who told the House that it was the “best possible chance to break out of that stranglehold” of the whips’ offices.

However, the proposal faced opposition from both frontbenches and some backbenchers. Labour MP Andrew Dismore expressed concern that the new committee could become a “whinger’s charter” for members who had failed to convince their own party colleagues of their suitability for a role. He also questioned whether it was appropriate for a panel with a government majority to have the power to overturn opposition appointments.

A motion to establish the committee of nomination was narrowly defeated by 209 votes to 195.

Anderson stood down from parliament at the 2005 general election.

In September 2007, Dunwoody surpassed Irene Ward’s record of the longest total service for a woman MP. She was first elected to parliament at the 1966 general election.

Dunwoody died on 17 April 2008, aged 77, following emergency heart surgery.

***

Following the expenses scandal, Gordon Brown’s government initiated the creation of the reform of the House of Commons committee in July 2009. As part of its remit, the “Wright committee”, so-called after its chair, Tony Wright, was asked to consider the appointment of members and chairmen of select committees.

The committee reported to the House on 4 November 2009 with 50 recommendations. Its report was officially titled: Report of the Reform of the House of Commons Committee, Rebuilding the House.

The Wright report argued that, “at a time when the House of Commons is going through a crisis of confidence not experienced in our lifetimes… largely, but not exclusively, because of the revelations about members’ expenses… both structural and cultural change” were required.

As a result, the backbench business committee was established shortly after the 2010 general election, giving backbench MPs some limited control over the parliamentary agenda. Crucially, it also recommended the election of select committee chairs by the whole House of Commons.

The cross-party group stated: “The committee recommends that the chairs of departmental and similar select committees be directly elected by secret ballot of the House using the alternative vote.

“The distribution of individual chairs between parties should be agreed as now by the parties, on the basis of a proportionate division conveyed to them by the speaker, and put to the House for its agreement.

“Candidates for chairs would be required to have a minimum level of support from within their party as well as being free to demonstrate support from other members.”

The Conservative-Liberal Democrat government agreed to its recommendations.