That brings us to our final item, the motion to allocate committee chairs to political groups, and I call a member of the Business Committee to formally move the motion.

Motion NDM6991 Elin Jones

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales, in accordance with Standing Order 17.2R and 17.2A, agrees that the political group from which the chair of the committee is elected will be as follows:

(i) Petitions Committee—Welsh Conservatives.

Motion moved.

I move.

Darren Millar formally moved. Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. It's a sad day, I think, for the National Assembly, that this motion is being brought before it, because we were all elected on the same basis two and a half years ago, and we are all proxies for the people here, and the Standing Order that establishes the distribution of Chairs of committees, in the aftermath of the last election, I think, did properly represent the results of the election in May 2016. What we're going to do today, if this motion passes, is actually make a very considerable disturbance in that situation.

One of the things that's impressed me since I've been here is the non-partisan way in which committees operate, and I believe that every single Chair of a committee, even those with robust views that are very far from mine, like Mick Antoniw, have used their position as committee Chairs with scrupulous impartiality, and I think that that is very much to the benefit of this institution—that we can have violent arguments across the Chamber, but in committees, we can work together and co-operate and be collegiate as well.

In the course of the last couple of years there has been a change in the numbers in different groups: my own group has lost three Members, Plaid Cymru has lost two Members, the Conservatives have gained a Member, and others have become independents. So, the position is, at the moment, that Labour's got, according to the figures produced by the research staff, 29 Members and it has six Chairs. That's 48 per cent of all Members and it's got 50 per cent of the Chairs. That's a rough equality. That's quite acceptable. UKIP has got four Members, 7 per cent of the Members, and it has 8 per cent of the chairs—almost exact proportionality. Plaid Cymru on the other hand has got only 17 per cent of the Members, but 25 per cent of the Chairs. The Conservatives have got 20 per cent of Members and 17 per cent of the Chairs. So, yes, the Conservatives are slightly under-represented and Plaid Cymru are significantly over-represented. So, if, as the Standing Order says, the Business Committee should have regard to the need to ensure the balance of Chairs across committees reflects the political groups to which Members belong, it's quite clear that Plaid Cymru should be losing a committee Chair if the Conservatives are to gain one.

There is no argument in principle, whatsoever, for UKIP to lose its Chair, because let's just look at the Standing Order. How could the Business Committee and the Assembly ensure that the balance of Chairs across committees reflects the political groups to which Members belong when UKIP is a group, the implication is that we are entitled therefore to one committee Chair? It certainly does not in any way reflect the balance of groups to deprive one group of a single Chair so it has no representation amongst the Chairs. That is, I think, a fundamental undermining of the Standing Order. What we are seeing here, I'm afraid, today, is a shabby and squalid smash and grab by the Cardiff Bay consensus—the three bigger parties combining together in order to take away the Chair that I believe rightly belongs to us under the Standing Orders that we all voted for at the start of this Assembly. So, this is a case of the tyranny of the majority. We often have debates in this place where people make political points about bullying. This is in fact an instance of bullying. We're a small group. You've got the numbers. We haven't got the numbers. You are determined to take away from us that which is rightfully ours.

Would you take an intervention?

I give way.

Thank you for taking it. Do you agree that Chairs are allocated—not two Chairs to one person? What you had was David Rowlands a Commissioner and also head of the Petitions Committee. Michelle Brown was totally left out. So, I think there would have been more sympathy with the UKIP group had Michelle Brown been allocated a Chair. 

Well, it would have been up to the Assembly to decide whether the Chair would have been allocated to her. That is not the issue that we are currently debating this afternoon. This is about the allocation of Chairs to groups. That has nothing to do with the individual holder of the Chair. I'll come to David Rowlands in a moment. If we really do belive in respecting minority rights, which is another matter that we often hear from the Members who are presumably going to vote to take away the minority's rights today, then that's a position that ought to be respected.

I believe that David Rowlands is indeed a respected Member of this place. He has conducted himself as Chair of the Petitions Committee with the same scrupulousness that other Chairs have in their own respective committees. He has ensured that more petitions are debated in the Chamber than I think has been the case in recent times, and that is a very good thing. So, I think we are actually doing violence to the foundational principle of representation in this place if we pass this motion this afternoon. A precedent is being set here, and I think it's a dangerous one, because any minority in future is at risk of having its rights violated in the same way that ours may well be today. I know that there are Members of the Tory group who have a deep respect for constitutional rights and for fairness and for the principle of fair representation in many contexts. So, I hope that there will be some Members of the Conservative group who will vote today with their traditional views very much in the forefront of their minds. 

I come lastly to Plaid Cymru, which is frequently to be heard lamenting the unfairness of society and much of Government's legislation, and, of course, deeply believes in the rights of small nations. Well, if you believe in the rights of small nations, I think you should believe in the rights of small parties also. The two things are, to all intents and purposes, indistinguishable. There are many Members in this place who like to think that the way we do things here in this Assembly is different from the way it's done in Westminster, and indeed is better than the way it's done in Westminster. Well, I'm afraid, today, that what we are intending to do, if this motion passes, is just the same. It's the same sort of grubby, brutal, tyranny of the majority, which I remember very well from the days when I was in Westminster.

I believe that those who vote for this motion today should have a deep sense of shame about what they're doing and they should reflect upon the constitutional precedent they set and the danger for the future. I do hope that somebody from the Conservative group today, perhaps the business manager, will rise in a moment in order to justify, on principle, the decision that he put forward in the Business Committee and which is the subject of this motion this afternoon.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.