Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees

§ The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain)

I beg to move, That this House—

1. 1. takes note of the Report of the Review Body on Senior Salaries on Pay for Select Committee Chairmen in the House of Commons presented to Parliament on 17th July (Cm. 5673);
2. 2. approves the Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges on Pay For Select Committee Chairmen (HC 1150); and endorses the principles set out in paragraph 16 of that report; and
3. 3. expresses the opinion that—
   1. (a) with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament, the salary of a Member should be £12,500 per annum higher than the figure determined in accordance with the provisions of the Resolution of the House of 10th July 1996 in respect of any period during which he is the Chairman of a select committee appointed under Standing Order No. 152 (Select Committees related to government departments), the Environmental Audit Committee, the European Scrutiny Committee, the Committee of Public Accounts, the Select Committee on Public Administration, the Regulatory Reform Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights or the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, other than to the extent that the provisions of sub-paragraph (c) apply;
   2. (b) a period begins for the purpose of sub-paragraph (a)—
   1. (i) with the day on which the Member becomes Chairman of such a committee, or
   2. (ii) with the beginning of the next Session of Parliament, in the case of a Member who became Chairman before that time;
   and ends on the day on which the Member ceases to be Chairman (or, if he is Chairman of more than one such committee, he ceases to be Chairman of the last of those committees);
4. (c) there shall be disregarded for the purpose of subparagraph (a)—
1. (i) any period which is of less than 24 hours duration; and
2. (ii) any period, or part thereof, in respect of which the Member is also entitled to an additional salary by virtue of any provision of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975;
5. (d) reference to any Committee in sub-paragraph (a) shall—
1. (i) if the name of the Committee is changed, be taken (subject to paragraph (ii)) to be a reference to the Committee by its new name; and
2. (ii) if the functions of the Committee become functions of a different Committee, be taken to be a reference to the Committee by whom the functions are for the time being exercisable;
6. (e) the provisions of paragraph (2) of the Resolution of the House of 10th July 1996 relating to Members' Salaries (No. 2) shall apply, with effect from 1st April 2004, to a salary determined in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph (a) asihey apply in relation to a salary determined in accordance with the provisions of that Resolution; and
7. (f) the Speaker shall have authority to interpret these provisions and to determine rules from time to time for their implementation.

In response to the last point of order, may I add that there are many such good shops in Neath as well?

The system of departmental Select Committees established by the House in 1979 has grown in stature and influence over the past two decades. The Committees have added significantly to the ability of the Commons to scrutinise and hold to account major Departments. The opportunity for sustained and close 449 questioning in Committee provides a degree of forensic scrutiny that it is simply not possible to attain in other forums such as the Floor of the House of Commons. It is not surprising that the system of Committees that exercises that scrutiny function is generally regarded as one of the most important and effective mechanisms for ensuring ministerial accountability. The Government welcomes that. As my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), was keen to point out, good scrutiny means good government.

Since 1979, the Committees' workload has increased markedly. In addition to the task of holding ministers to account, they are responsible for a range of duties including the scrutiny of draft Bills, independent regulators and executive agencies. It was in recognition of the scrutiny Committees' important role, expanding tasks and increasing influence that the Modernisation Committee, then chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston, examined the extra burden that fell to Committee staff and Chairmen. The report recommended an increase in the resources available to the Committees, including a new central unit of specialist support staff the—scrutiny unit, which is now fully up and running—and a review of each Committee's staffing needs; a significant increase in staffing is now being implemented.

The Modernisation Committee also recommended that the Chairmen of the scrutiny Committees should be paid an additional salary. The additional amount is proposed in recognition of the extra work that those Chairmen are expected to undertake and in the hope that it will go some way towards creating a career path in Parliament as an alternative to the ministerial route, highlighting the value that Parliament and the Government place upon the scrutiny function of the House.

§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

Although there is undoubtedly a compelling argument for the payment of the Chairmen of Select Committees, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a certain incongruity, to put it no more strongly, about the fact that the composition of Select Committees, whose purpose is to scrutinise the Executive, is determined by representatives of the Executive? Is that not something about which a modernising Leader of the House, be he part-time or full-time, should be properly concerned?

§ Mr. Hain

Obviously, concerns about this matter were debated a little while ago; in fact, it was last year when the House took a decision on it.

§ Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

I shall be candid: I am opposed to the proposed payment. I would be more satisfied, however, if there were to 132 a declaration of distance between the Government and the act of nominating or anointing people as Chairmen of Select Committees. For example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) was anointed to be Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs after the general election as—one has to say this; I do not say it in a nasty way—a consolation prize for losing office. If there is a new career path structure, Ministers should be kept out of it. There 450 should be a period of quarantine between leaving ministerial office and being Chairman of a Select Committee.

§ Mr. Hain

My hon. Friend makes his point with characteristic vigour, and it is similar to that made by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), but there is also an additional point—we as the Labour party have addressed this matter by changing the rules under which Select Committee membership is decided. The parliamentary party now has an opportunity to consider names and make a decision. Perhaps that is a practice that other parties in this House might follow.

§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

There are other parties in the House that would love to follow that practice, but unfortunately do not have fair representation in the membership of Select Committees, as the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) conceded on many occasions when he was Leader of the House. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered in proposing this extension of patronage the fact that no minority party in the House has a Select Committee Chairman, although they would be entitled to one in proportional terms, given the number of Select Committee Chairmen and the percentage of the composition of the House that is accounted for by minority parties? Will he alter these clear inequities before introducing measures for extending patronage?

§ Mr. Hain

I reject entirely the suggestion that the proposal is about extending patronage. It is a matter for the House to decide. Indeed, the House made its decision last year and requested that the Senior Salaries Review Body look into the matter. I am now following that up. I cannot see what there is to do with patronage in the question whether Select Committee Chairmen should be rewarded more fairly. As to how Chairmen are selected, the Committee of Selection is aware of the concerns of minority parties and is looking at them.

On 14 May last year, following a debate on the Modernisation Committee's report, the House resolved that the Review Body on Senior Salaries should be invited to consider what additional remuneration is appropriate for chairmen of select committees."—[Official Report, 14 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 723.] The SSRB's report, which was published on 17 July this year, recommended a single level of additional payment for Chairmen of departmental and externally focused cross-departmental Committees amounting to £12,500 a year. I am grateful to the SSRB and its chairman, John Baker, for the work that it has done on this matter and for its usual careful consideration of the issues involved. The SSRB's recommendations form the basis of the motions that I bring before the House this afternoon.

There are two motions on the Order Paper. The first expresses the House's opinion on the matter; the second is an "effective motion" that is designed to give effect to the first "opinion motion" and is required in order that the Queen's recommendation can be signified to the Government expenditure that the motion will entail—in this case, the increased Exchequer contributions to Members' pensions. An explanatory memorandum has been made available in the Vote Office. 451 I turn first to the amount that would be paid. The motion follows the SSRB in proposing that the pay of a Member who is a qualifying Chairman should be increased by £12,500 a year for the period during which they are Chairman. The motion provides for the increased salary to be uprated annually in the same way as Members' pay. The SSRB said that it has taken "a cautious initial approach" to Chairmen's pay and has announced its intention to revisit the issue of the pay of Committee Chairmen as part of its continuing fundamental reviews of parliamentary pay and allowances.

The intention is that the additional rate of Members' pay paid to Chairmen should be taken into account when calculating Members' pensions. The additional rate of pay would be treated for pension purposes in a similar way to Ministers' pay. If the House agrees to that principle today, I will bring forward regulations as soon as possible to amend the statutory instrument that contains the rules for the parliamentary contributory pension fund. The intention is that the regulations will have effect backdated to the beginning of next Session, so that Chairmen's pay would, in effect, be pensionable from the beginning. I understand that the chairman of the trustees is content with what is being proposed.

The House authorities have calculated that the cost of implementing the motion—based on payment of £12,500 to 25 Committees—will be in the region of £420,000 a year, including employer's pension and national insurance contributions, but not administration costs. If any qualifying Chairmen were not to take up the payment, the total cost would, of course, be reduced.

The motion follows the SSRB's recommendation in proposing that Chairmen's pay be limited to the Chairmen of the departmental Select Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 152 and seven externally focused cross-departmental Select Committees—the Environmental Audit Committee, the European Scrutiny Committee, the Public Accounts Committee, the Public Administration Committee, the Regulatory Reform Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

§ Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

As the Leader of the House will know, as Chairman of the Procedure Committee I tabled an amendment that was unfortunately not selected. Bearing in mind that the Procedure Committee was not included among the number of Committees whose Chairmen were to receive remuneration under the Liaison Committee's report, will the Leader of the House reconsider the matter at an early date? Given that my own future time in the House is limited, I do not perhaps have a long-term vested interest, but I believe that the work of the Procedure Committee is very important to the House—and we do travel as part of our responsibilities.

§ Mr. Hain

I am very sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point of view. The Procedure Committee is indeed an important Committee that plays a crucial role; and the hon. Gentleman's role is particularly distinguished. I am sure that the matter will continue to be considered. The Modernisation Committee can, of course, revisit it; and he, as a member of that 452 Committee, can make further representations. I am equally happy to receive such representations from others.

The original Modernisation Committee report and the report of the SSRB were explicit in their recommendation 1 hat the additional salary should reflect the extra work undertaken by those Committees that are actively involved in the scrutiny of Government.

§ Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)

Although we all appreciate the work of the SSRB, many of us, including me, gave evidence to the Committee that it was not a salary that Chairs particularly wanted, but extra help to back us up in fulfilling our responsibilities. When I became Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Skills two and half years ago, I used all my staff and parliamentary allowance, much of which was diverted to my work as a Chairman. What we really need is extra capacity for help in the office, not a salary.

§ Mr. Hain

My hon. Friend's point has been recognised, and extra resources are coming into Select Committees. However, that is not an alternative to rewarding Chairmen properly: it is a complement, or a parallel measure, to strengthen Select Committees. The point of the exercise is to reward those who, quite properly, place Ministers such as myself under scrutiny. We want to strengthen the democratic basis of the House of Commons and the role of scrutiny, and that is precisely what this measure achieves.

I understand that some Members are keen to recognise the contributions made by those in other positions in the House, as did the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton). Although there may be a strong argument for such financial recognition, the motions reflect the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee, the decision of the House last May, and the opinion of the SSRB.

§ Pete Wishart (North Tayside)

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the likely response of the public to this extension of payment to certain Members of the House? He will be aware that when the Scottish Parliament awarded an extra payment to its Members, a public outcry followed. Does he not fear that there will be a similar outcry in this case?

§ Mr. Hain

There is always a reaction in the media and elsewhere when such matters are discussed, but this merits fair and balanced consideration, especially given that the rate was decided by an independent review body that was not influenced by the Government or by me, as Leader of the Commons. The SSRB, reflecting the House's decision that this was a proper matter for award, recommended a level of remuneration. I think that most members of the public would recognise that Select Committee Chairmen increasingly do an onerous and important job in holding the Government to account, especially a Government with as large a parliamentary majority as ours.

In my written statement announcing publication of the SSRB's report, I reported that I had asked the Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges whether his Committee would look into the matter of Chairmen's outside interests. I am very 453 grateful to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and his Committee for their work. The motion endorses the Committee's recommendation that there should be no question of, nor any appearance of, any double payment for outside activity arising primarily as a result of the chairmanship. If the House agrees to that principle, the Committee has said that it will develop guidelines for Chairmen.

The motions clarify when Chairmen's pay should be paid—that is, from the day on which a Member is elected Chairman of a qualifying Committee or, for those already serving as Chairmen, from the beginning of next Session until the day on which he or she ceases to hold the post. Ministers and other officeholders would be excluded from payment, as would those who served as Chairmen for less than one day. In case unforeseen circumstances arise, it is proposed that the Speaker be given authority to interpret the provisions and to make rules for their implementation.

I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would support the view that the scrutiny Committees add to Parliament's ability to achieve accountability from Government. The Government is keen to promote and facilitate changes that enhance scrutiny and the public perception of Parliament. The motions before the House reflect recommendations of the Modernisation Committee and the SSRB that are designed to achieve these ends. However, the decision is, of course, one for the House, not for the Government. It is in that spirit that I table the motions for debate and decision by the House.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

I want to start by broadly endorsing the remarks of the Leader of the House and the content of the motions tabled in his name.

The House will recall that we agreed this matter in principle, albeit narrowly, some time ago; we are therefore returning to it simply to give it effect. It is important to remember, however, that that narrowness should make us sensitive to the fact that many hon. Members, perhaps some here present, were and are unhappy about the approach that we are taking: we should therefore show due caution.

The fact that the matter was referred to an outside body for determination means that, as the Leader of the House said, it should not in any way be interpreted as this House lining its own pockets. Although we have approved the principle, for reasons that I thoroughly support, it is worth recalling that the amount that was recommended, and is reflected in the motions, was set by that most independent of bodies, the Senior Salaries Review Body.

§ Mr. Salmond

I presume that the shadow Leader of the House, as a convinced free marketeer, accepts the principle of supply and demand in determining salaries. Has he noticed any shortage of supply of suitably qualified candidates to chair Select Committees? If so, does he believe that that should be taken into account?

§ Mr. Forth

Funnily enough, I was going to consider that point in a slightly different context. I shall comment later on its relevance to the Chairmen's Panel—a subject that is close to my heart and that I want to raise with the Leader of the House. In a sense, the hon. Gentleman is right. I suspect that if Members were paid nothing, there would be some eccentrics demanding to do the job. But that is not the modern way. We must accept that although some of us thoroughly enjoy the job, we are paid because we have to feed our families and pay our mortgages.

We are considering a different issue, which the Leader of the House mentioned briefly. It is important to set it in context and remind ourselves of where we come from. I have had the privilege of serving in the House for 20 years. I have been a Government Back Bencher and was privileged to be a Minister for some nine years. I have been an Opposition Back-Bench Member and I am currently in the shadow Cabinet. Who knows where I shall be in a week or so's time? All that gives me an interesting perspective. From the moment I arrived, I was conscious of an imbalance in the sense that although there is a career structure for those who want to be Ministers, there has never been such a structure in the House. For colleagues who may not want to become Ministers or may not have that privilege, it is important to acknowledge that there is a proper job to be done as a parliamentarian rather than a Minister. The motion and our votes in principle for the proposals a couple of years ago reflect a move towards that by acknowledging that it is proper to make some sort of payment in recognition not only of the additional responsibilities of being a Committee Chairman but of the alternative career structure that it could offer Members of Parliament. I endorse the motion on that basis.

One of the amendments that were not selected reflects questions about the SSRB's recommendation that only some Committee Chairmen should be paid. Like the Leader of the House, I am for the moment content to accept that we should proceed on that basis. However, I hope that we shall keep the matter in mind. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton); I suspect that if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will shortly make it again in his usual forceful way. He said that the list to which the Leader of the House referred is not sacrosanct and should not be regarded as the final word on this matter. Distinguishing between Select Committees and considering whether the distinction we make today is correct are contentious matters. We should feel free to revert to them after the House approves the motions.

§ Mr. Hain

I endorse the right hon. Gentleman's points. The motion should not be the final word on the matter. We should ascertain how the proposals bed down and how we proceed.

§ Mr. Forth

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for those comments. I hope that they will give some comfort to those who are uneasy about the precise form of words.

The same argument applies to the amount of the additional salary that is being recommended. Again, I 455 amplify the comments of the Leader of the House. Paragraph 2.30 on page 8 of the SSRB's report states: Taking all these issues into account we have decided to take a cautious initial approach to the pay of the Chairmen of the relevant committees. In so doing we announce our intention to revisit the pay of Committee Chairmen as part of our continuing fundamental reviews from time to time of parliamentary pay and allowances, the next to occur in 2003–04. By then, we may be better placed to assess whether or not the new "core tasks" become firmly bedded into the departmental Committee structure, and are delivering the wider scrutiny and investigative objectives envisaged by the Modernisation and Liaison Committees, and, if so, the consequences for the work of the Chairmen. That is a signal and a commitment to reconsider the matter so that we can continue to assess whether our actions constitute the right approach and whether the arrangements are having the desired effect.

The approach is rightly cautious at this stage but I am happy that the Leader of House has said that it will be kept under review.

§ Mr. Bercow

Although the Leader of the House dealt lightly and perhaps too briefly with my intervention about the basis for composing Select Committees, does my right hon. Friend agree that the composition of the Committees and the basis for deciding who becomes a Chairman are inextricably bound up with the question of pay? If we do not deal adequately with the need to democratise the chairmanship of the Committees, the Chairmen will literally become members of the payroll vote.

§ Mr. Forth

I am with my hon. Friend on that matter. His eagle eye will have noted that amendments that sought to deal with that problem were tabled, but sadly not selected. The controversial decision that the House made two years ago about our method of nominating members of Select Committees and the way in which those Committees subsequently choose their Chairmen—or not—means that we must revert to the matter as a result of our actions today. If one argues for an alternative career structure as a parliamentary matter, it is difficult to square that with procedure hitherto, which provides that the usual channels, the Whips, have an iron grip not so much on membership—the Government have probably gone further than us on that—but on chairmanships. If the House approves payment for Chairmen, the issue becomes even more relevant than when we previously considered the matter. When the Deputy Leader of the House winds up the debate for the Government, I hope that he will give us some encouragement.

§ Mr. Sheerman

The right hon. Gentleman is presenting a good analysis of the position. Although I missed a couple of minutes of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I do not believe that anyone has yet mentioned Lord Sheldon, whose input into all the deliberations was so important. He is the architect of much of the proposals.

§ Mr. Forth

I am more than happy to pay tribute to Lord Sheldon, a distinguished and long-serving Member of the House of Commons. If anyone feels any guilt about the proposals or the need to blame anyone else, Lord Sheldon can fill that role. That is doubly beneficial and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) for his intervention.

456 I do not wish to detain hon. Members; I have made my views clear. Although the vote is genuinely free, as it should be on such a parliamentary matter, I hope that my hon. Friends can support my view. I make one last plea to the Leader of the House about a subject that is close to my heart and relevant to the proposals. I believed from the start that those who genuinely deserved increased pay were the members of the Chairmen's Panel. That body carries out extraordinarily important work on behalf of the House in an unglamorous, usually unrecognised way. Without it, the House could not function. If I may say so without upsetting anyone present, Select Committee Chairmen enjoy much more; glamour and travel and are probably able to get more direct satisfaction from their work. They appear in the media and so on. Perhaps that is the wrong way round. Now that we have established the principle of additional pay and a parliamentary career structure, and if we accept the motions today to give effect to that, I hope that the Leader of the House and the Modernisation Committee will consider the Chairmen's Panel specifically, and perhaps other similar matters that they deem appropriate. I say that because I believe that it is important that the Chairmen's Panel attracts Members of the highest calibre and ability, and that we recognise and reward that appropriately. I hope, therefore, that if we can deal with this business satisfactorily today, get the details right and get on with it in a flexible way that is not set in concrete, the Modernisation Committee will allow us to move on and to deal with the matter of the Chairmen's Panel as a matter of urgency. I hope that the House will feel able to agree to the motions before it today, and I wish the Select Committee Chairmen well as a result.

§ Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

I am very conscious that my comments will probably not win me any friends. Nevertheless, I intend to try to persuade the House that the proposal before us is a very foolish one. I have to declare an interest. in that I do not think that Ministers should be part of the legislature. I would like them out of it. The relevance of that is that they would then be paid a ministerial salary, but not a parliamentary salary as well. A driving force behind my argument is to identify some parallels with junior Ministers.

I believe that people in the legislature should all be paid the same rate because we are doing the same job. We may have different functions within the legislature, but the same intensity, responsibility and integrity is required of each and every one of us. The fact that some people fulfil different functions does not mean that they work harder or have greater decision-making responsibilities. I accept that Ministers take executive action, but those of us who are not Ministers have to judge every day how far we can push, persuade and probe them, bearing in mind all the constraints of party politics—let us be frank about that.

Some Members are the patron saint of hopeless cases. What about the people who take up the really unpopular causes? I have not done that, but there are some who have. Such people show enormous courage, and for that reason they attract every pressure group and lost cause. The burden on them is enormous, but that is not reflected in their salary. It is dangerous to create a disparity between some Members of Parliament 457 and others that is reflected in their salaries. As I have said, the situation is already distorted by Ministers. The gap between ministerial salaries and MPs' salaries is too big. Obviously, I would make an exception for the top echelon, for the people who preside in the Chair, and so on. By and large, however, the disparity is too great, and now we are going to compound it by having two tiers of Back-Bench Members. That is foolhardy in the extreme.

It would be perverse if we were to pass this measure today and exclude the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. That would be stark staring bonkers, frankly, and I hope that, if that happens, it will be remedied pretty damned quickly. But it is the principle of the matter to which I am opposed today, and I urge the House to reflect on that, even at this stage.

I listened carefully to what the shadow Leader of the House said. He made a good point in acknowledging that the members of the Chairmen's Panel do unglamorous work, which is not reflected in their salaries. That is absolutely correct. There will also be new cases; this problem will increase. There is a powerful case, for example, for the deputy Leader of the Opposition to be paid more. There could be a case to be advanced for some reflection of the Liberal party's role. People might disagree with the idea, hut we can advance the case for the leaders of political parties being paid more.

§ Mr. Forth

And the shadow Leader of the House.

§ Andrew Mackinlay

And the shadow Leader of the House in particular. He is in constant attendance in the House. Are we really suggesting that he pedals less fast on the treadmill than the Leader of the House? I just do not accept that. We all have different roles, and I hope that we are all working ourselves to the very limit. If some of us are not, people should know about it.

The shadow Leader of the House mentioned the unglamorous nature of the work done by the members of the Chairmen's Panel. They do that work very well. There are other people who do unglamorous work here and who are paid more for it. They are the junior Government Whips. I have nothing against them, but they are paid large sums of extra money, as compared with ordinary MPs, and they only have a walk-on part. They do not have much to say. The only thing they do is to stand up at the end of the day and say, "I beg to move that this House do now adjourn." What has always amazed me is that they cannot learn their line. They read it every night. I invite hon. Members to look, next time. Presumably this does riot apply to my distinguished colleague on the Front Bench this afternoon, but nine times out of 10 they cannot even rehearse their line. They have to stand up and read it from a folder, and they get £12,000 a year more for that.

I know how important the junior Whips are to the mechanisms and workings of Parliament. Of course I accept that. I am referring to the unglamorous nature of their work, because they have no speaking role in the House except to say, "I beg to move that this House do now adjourn."

§ Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire)

If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that this money should be spread more widely, why should it not be given to shadow Ministers? After all, they have to do an enormous amount of work in shadowing a particular portfolio, and they have very little support. If we are going to give extra money to those who have a high profile, would it not be quite right also to give it to those with a rather lower profile but who have to work extremely hard?

§ Andrew Mackinlay

The hon. Gentleman makes me feel wholly inadequate because he has made that point much better than I was trying to do. It is absurd to extend this measure to the Chairmen of Select Committees, because there will be a compelling case to compound the error of creating two tiers. There is a case for shadow spokespersons to have facilities, and the list could be endless. In a short space of time, we could have two tiers of Members of Parliament.

§ Sir Nicholas Winterton

rose—

§ Andrew Mackinlay

I am happy to give way to such a distinguished Member.

§ Sir Nicholas Winterton

That is very kind of the hon. Gentleman. The Chairmen's Panel consists of men and women who do a lot of unsung work that is vital to the way in which the House operates. In doing so, they forgo the opportunity of speaking in debates in the House, which would give them coverage not only in the national media but in their local media. Their role is very important and deserves to be valued in due course.

§ Andrew Mackinlay

That is a valid point. The House might like to reflect on whether it should adopt a practice from the House of Lords, where the equivalent of the Chairmen's Panel is much more extensive. Similarly, in the United States Congress, there are people who preside in the Chair when the Speaker is absent. That function should be spread around, and all of us should have the honour and the obligation to fulfil that function over the course of a Parliament at an equal rate. That would be much more sensible and equitable. It would mean that people were not preoccupied with fulfilling the important function of chairing Committees and being denied the opportunity to participate in debates in the House. I want parity of treatment in the House.

§ Mr. Salmond

Would membership of the Chairmen's Panel also be open to former Government junior Whips who have trouble reading out, "I beg to move that this House do now adjourn"?

§ Andrew Mackinlay

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question, but I am in enough trouble as it is, and I have an appointment later with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) about some times at which I want to be absent from the House.

I was very sympathetic to the point that there is a need for increased back-up for the Select Committees and their Chairmen. I shall give an illustration, although I am not trying to denigrate my hon. Friends on the 459 Treasury Bench in any way. The junior Whips have the use of a Government car, but there may not be an overwhelmingly compelling case for them to do so. However, what they have, they hold—that is a good trade union principle—and I do not want to take it away from them. But if the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for example, had to go to the Chinese embassy or the Russian embassy one lunchtime, or if the Chairman of the Health Committee had to go over to the Department of Health at Elephant and Castle, they would have to go by public transport. There is nothing wrong with that, but if the reason for having a car is to expedite and maximise the scarce time and resources of people with a great deal of responsibility, there is a case for allowing the Chairmen of Select Committees to have them as well. The case for a car is much more compelling than the case for increasing their salaries. I am sympathetic to their need for facilities, including cars, but not to the proposal to increase their salaries.

As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), this issue is inextricably bound up with the question of how Select Committee members are chosen. I hope that those who do not share my view that there should be more parity in salary terms, including Ministers, will join me in opposing the motion until we have a better system for the selection of Committee members and the selection—or anointing—of Chairpersons. Regardless of whether Labour, Conservatives or Liberal Democrats are in government, the Government of the day in particular—although this will also be true of Opposition Whips—will have a compelling wish, and the capacity, to mould Select Committees to the best likeness of the Government.

The Leader of the House explained the function of Select Committees, and said that he welcomed scrutiny. I accept that that is his view, and also that it is the desirable view; but I think we are being proud of ourselves prematurely if we imagine we have developed our Select Committee systems to the necessary extent. We have not yet done that, and I do not believe that this proposal will advance the position. In a sense, we have not earned what is being proposed.

I assume that after Christmas we shall have an opportunity to discuss the Hutton inquiry. I do not want to trespass on that territory at this stage—I am putting myself in purdah—but in that context as in others the whole issue of scrutiny is at stake. There is, for instance, a big question mark over whether the Osmotherley rules can be reinforced to prevent people from appearing before Committees. There is also a question mark over whether the green light can be given for public servants, Ministers and people in the private sector to appear before Committees and obfuscate. I hope that at some stage the Standards and Privileges, Liaison and Procedure Committees will consider how we can ensure that such people tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That is relevant to what we are discussing because, as I have said, I think it premature for us to imagine that we have reached a satisfactory stage in terms of scrutiny. Independence must be earned, and that returns us to the question of how people are selected.

At the time of the Iraq war, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) resigned ministerial office. I cannot find words adequate to acknowledge how courageous and principled his 460 resignation was. Nevertheless, I was equally amazed by what happened text. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee became a Minister—I believe, incidentally, that he voted against the war—and there was then a vacancy for the post of Home Affairs Committee Chairman. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen, having been a Home Office Minister, suddenly became Chairman of the Committee.

No matter how distinguished and principled that gentleman was, or is—indeed, that is beyond doubt—I consider it wrong for someone to chair a Select Committee that will scrutinise the Department in which until recently he was a Minister. I think that that is stark staring bonkers.

§ Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle)

That followed a recommendation from the parliamentary Labour party to the Labour members of the Home Affairs Committee. The key question is this, however: if the parties are to be instrumental in placing people on Select Committees, should their procedures be published? It is, after all, openness and transparency that are so important.

§ Andrew Mackinlay

My hon. Friend and I have discussed the issue informally. He attaches great importance to the fact that Labour's parliamentary committee—the equivalent of the 1922 committee—decided that the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen should chair the Home Affairs Committee. I think he sees it as something of an advance. I want to be generous this afternoon, but it is at best a marginal advance.

We are talking about party patronage. What if it became the norm in our party and thereby, ipso facto, became part of the British constitution? Along with others, I joined Conservative Members to install the late Sir Robert Adley as Chairman of the Transport Committee in place of the person nominated by agreement between the Conservative Whips in 1992. I would have been denied that opportunity had the parliamentary committee said "No: this is the person for whom you, Mackinlay, must vote". In fact it said that anyway, but I felt confident enough, as I was following the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She and I, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), baulked at being told who to choose. We honoured the choice of a Conservative Chairman, but it was Robert Adley whom we chose—and we could not have done so under the system proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).

Before agreeing to these motions, the House should take account of an arrangement that has just been implemented by our cousins in the Ottawa Parliament. They have instituted their first ever secret ballot—we know how interesting those are, do we not?—for committee members to choose their chairpersons. If we did the same here, there might be a case for these proposals.

§ Mr. Forth

Just to dot the i's and cross the t's, may I ask whether the, hon. Gentleman favours the continuation of a rough apportionment of Chairs according to party before Committee members are allowed to select? Otherwise, given an imbalance in the 461 House of the kind that currently exists, there would be a risk that every Chairman would be a member of the Labour party.

§ Andrew Mackinlay

That is a racing certainty. Yes, I think there should be an apportionment. I also think—as, I believe, did Gladstone, whose fingerprints were on the establishment of the Public Accounts Committee—that in some instances there should be a presumption that the Chairperson is not a member of the governing party. That would mean a sacrifice, but it would he in the interests of democracy. I hope that the Leader of the House will leave office—having, I hope, held it for longer than his immediate predecessors—knowing that he has revolutionised some of our procedures. I am thinking both of changes in our methods of selection and of the possibility of a presumption—I use the word advisedly—that some Committees should be chaired by a member of a party other than the governing party.

I want to frame my final point in the form of a question, phrased somewhat facetiously. The Foreign Secretary and I have argued repeatedly about the Intelligence and Security Committee. He claims that the fact that it is not a Committee of the House of Commons constitutes a distinction rather than a difference. I say that it has absolutely nothing to do with the House of Commons. It is not paid for by the House of Commons, and it is not clerked by the House of Commons; it is clerked by the Cabinet Office. The chairman and secretary are anointed by the Prime Minister.

What do the Government intend in regard to the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee? She cannot be paid with House of Commons money, because the ISC is not a parliamentary Committee. If she were paid with Government money through some Executive action, it would mean that she held an office of profit under the Crown, and she would therefore be disqualified from holding office in the House of Commons. If the concept that the ISC is somehow equal to or comparable with a parliamentary Committee—the concept of a distinction without a difference—is to survive, primary legislation will be required. I am, in a sense, saying to the Leader of the House, "Discuss." I should like to hear his views.

All that should take place against the backdrop of the Foreign Affairs Committee's recommendation that the ISC should be made a Committee of the House of Commons, appointed by the Howe of Commons, inadequate though its appointment procedures are. As I have said, I should like them to be improved.

This is another increment my argument to the House that the motion is premature and has not been adequately thought out. There is the question of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and the heart of the matter is how we select the members and appoint the Chairmen of our Select Committees. We have not yet earned the reputation for providing adequate scrutiny in this place; we are only scratching the surface. We know of the obstructions that have been put in our way; every Committee could give evidence on how it has been obstructed and misled. Until such time as we grapple with these big issues, it is wholly wrong to advance money for the so-called Chairmen of these Committees.

§ Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), and not for the first time; I hope that that does not embarrass him. Indeed, I represented some of the views that he has expressed when the Modernisation Committee discussed this matter, a point to which I shall return. However, I should draw to his attention the fact that there are precedents for Members receiving additional salary, over and above their parliamentary salary. I am talking not just about the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, who, as we all accept, hold very onerous positions. The Leader of the Opposition receives a considerable salary—[Interruption.] Well, there is a problem here to which attention needs to be drawn. Let us consider a hypothetical situation in which, numerically, the two Opposition parties are within one seat of each other after the next general election. If one Member transfers from the Conservative Benches to the Liberal Democrat ones, he comes with £500,000. That is a considerable incentive, perhaps, although I am not making an offer. That could be a very interesting transfer fee, and some percentage might be considered.

I should draw the attention of the hon. Member for Thurrock to appendix F of the Senior Salaries Review Body report, on page 18. Considerable sums are involved, and I should also point out that a car and driver are made available to the Leader of the Opposition at public expense. The point that the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee made about the resources available to the Chairmen of Select Committees is very valid, and although we have made some modest improvements in that regard, that remains the core issue, rather than the question of salary incentives. I shall return to that point a little later.

This afternoon's discussion is extremely important. As the Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, we are talking about not servants of the Executive or those who are simply aspirant Ministers, but servants of Parliament: those who believe that serving the nation and their constituents in an effective Parliament that holds the Executive to account is not just an honourable profession, but an extremely important one. In that respect, I very much share the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.

Naturally, those colleagues on both sides of the House who endorsed my amendments appreciate and respect the decision not to select them. We understand the dynamics of this place, but I would be letting them down if I did not express some disappointment at that decision. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House can give us explicit assurances in respect of concerns already expressed—not least by the hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Thurrock—about the way in which the package has unravelled, a point to which I shall also return.

The clear mood of the House this afternoon is that this is not a full stop. I hope that the Government will make it clear that the wider concerns already expressed today—they were expressed extensively during the debate of 14 May last year and are reflected in the reports—will be considered very carefully in an appropriate forum.

463 In the meantime, I yield to absolutely nobody—whether inside or outside this House—in my admiration and support for the increasingly effective scrutiny by Select Committees. It is clear that the question of the leadership of those Committees is extremely important. The hon. Member for Thurrock, in his usual modest way, expressed some reservations about the extent to which the Hutton inquiry has demonstrated that our own processes are not fully adequate to the task that we set for our colleagues who do that job. I accept that, but at least we are moving in the right direction. What we must make clear this afternoon is whether the effort to improve the way in which Select Committees operate in future is being helped or hindered. I would suggest that, to some extent, the jury is still out.

I am not selective in my admiration for Select Committees, so I shall not be selective in my admiration for the Modernisation Committee, of which I am delighted to have been a member since its inception. I want to draw the attention of the House, and of the Leader of the House in particular, to the package of recommendations put to the House in February 2002. It was not just a one-off proposal to pay the Chairmen of Select Committees; it was an entire package. We have referred to the resources issue, which is extremely important. On that occasion, we made an important point about limitation on term. It was clear that, if we were to pay Members to be Chairmen of Select Committees, it would unreasonable to specify an unlimited period, given that there are many volunteers. So we recommended a period of two Parliaments, with special provisions applying if a speedy change should occur between general elections. Indeed, when we last debated this issue, we effectively wrote in a limitation on term, so to some extent that concern has been met.

Other concerns were expressed, however. Although it is clearly right to try to devise an alternative career path, it has to be done in the context of specific safeguards. Limitation on term is one safeguard, but it is not the most important. It is even more vital that the House regain overall responsibility for and the right to supervise the appointment of members of Select Committees. Here, I very much endorse the concerns expressed by the hon. Members for Buckingham and for Thurrock—in other words, on both sides of the House—about unfinished business. I do not want to take away from the parliamentary parties the right to make nominations, but there must be a safeguard. Some opportunity must exist for appeal—for this House to take responsibility for who is to serve it on Select Committees; otherwise, there will always be a question mark about increased patronage on the part of those who, although they may not want to muzzle Select Committees, may want to finesse the way in which they are led.

I have the greatest respect for the current team of Select Committee Chairmen, regardless of party. I hope that I am not embarrassing the one or two who are present. Many of the Chairmen have past ministerial experience, and I suspect that that helps. I am not sure that the immediate jump from one part of the political spectrum into that role is quite as admirable as some would suppose. I yield to no one in my respect for the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), but the hon. Member for Thurrock makes a good point: does leaving a Department and then 464 becoming Chairman of the relevant Select Committee provide an opportunity to find the skeletons that much quicker? That is possible. On the other hand, does the new Chairman arrive with a mindset that makes scrutiny less effective?

Safeguards are extremely important. We should consider the question of it being thought, whether inside or outside this House, that the Whips Offices have effectively given themselves extra leverage over existing Select Committee Chairmen, whereby they say, "Take it easy, boy, because we've got an important and difficult job to do. By the way, you do remember that your salary is to some extent dependent on the support of your Whips Office." That is an extremely important issue. Even if that were not the reality, but the perception was that in some way or other, the effectiveness of a Select Committee and its leadership was in any way being hampered by the new financial pressures that the Whips Office could exert, that would be very damaging indeed.

§ Mr. Bercow

Given that, under our procedures, a period of time must elapse between the departure of a Minister and his assumption of commercial responsibilities relating to the Department of which he was previously part, does the hon. Gentleman think, further to the intervention of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), that the same principle should apply to departing Ministers who take over the chairmanship of Select Committees?

§ Mr. Tyler

That is a very positive suggestion, to which I was about to come. The comparison that the hon. Gentleman makes with a ministerial exit is very valid; indeed, I had not thought of that way of approaching the issue. It would be a good solution. I very much hope that the Government will respond to that specific point.

§ Sir Nicholas Winterton

To reinforce the hon. Gentleman's case, I recall that when the Conservatives came to office, Labour took control of the Social Services Select Committee and wished to appoint the immediately prior Secretary of State for Social Services—David Ennals, who became Lord Ennals—as the Chairman of that Select Committee. I have to say that some colleagues, including Labour Members, and I prevented that from occurring for the very reason that has been suggested. We had the chairmanship put in the safe hands of the then hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).

§ Mr. Tyler

Many of us will recall that example, even if we were not Members of Parliament at the time. It demonstrates the value of having a degree of independence, which leads to effective and independent scrutiny.

I want to refer to a couple of other issues that were the subject of the amendments. I find it odd that there is such confusion about the dividing line between the Committees that should receive the additional remuneration for their Chairs and those that should not. The Modernisation Committee had a different dividing line, as did the Liaison Committee in its original report—I see the Chairman of that Committee in his place—from the one that is specified now.

I am unclear about how the dividing line has been drawn. Have the Government leaned on the SSRB, or has it come completely independently to the view that,

465 for example, the procedure of the House is less important than the work of the Environmental Audit Committee? Or is that Committee being treated somehow as a domestic Select Committee rather than a scrutiny Select Committee? I do not understand that. The reference in paragraph 2.02 of the SSRB report does not deal with that particular problem, but leaves it open as to where the dividing line should be drawn. I would like to be assured that the concerns expressed to the House this afternoon—they reflect issues raised in our debate of 14 May and again in the SSRB report—have been properly addressed.

I understand the point of view of the nationalists. Although, thank goodness, I no longer have any role in those concerns, it is a matter for direct negotiation with the Government and both sides were happy to take the issue on. However, it is a private fight, in which I do not want to indulge—

§ Mr. Salmond

As the hon. Gentleman has indulged himself a little, I will allow him to indulge himself some more. Surely, if a change is being proposed in respect of the payment of Select Committee Chairman, it is only reasonable that any outstanding issues concerning the method of selection are addressed before further changes are made. Is that not a relevant matter?

§ Mr. Tyler

I am not saying that it is irrelevant, but that it is a dialogue to which I do not intend to contribute. I take the point that several outstanding issues have not yet been addressed.

I shall return to the motion. Given the comments of the Leader of the House, an outside observer might consider that there was consensus on all the issues, but that is simply untrue. It is clear even in the SSRB report that there was far from consensus on the critical issue. Paragraph 41 of the original report of the Modernisation Committee referred to the principle of payment of Select Committee Chairs, and I hope that the House will forgive me if I read a few lines because it is highly relevant. It states: This is not a matter on which there is any consensus in the House. The Chairman of the Liaison Committee in his evidence to us was frank that the chairmen themselves of the select committees hold opposing views. This difference of opinion was reflected in our own Committee. We are unanimous in agreeing that the post of chairman of departmental select committees attracts a heavy workload and a substantial responsibility. There are some, however, who attach importance to the principle that all backbench Members should receive the same salary and believe that there would be dangers in relating pay to workload which can vary for many reasons among Members. That is far from a ringing endorsement of the principle that has been put before the House this afternoon. There are a great many outstanding issues, such as those highlighted in the Select Committee report from which I have just quoted—we are paying tribute to the work of Select Committees this afternoon. I take those issues from the report as our starting point this afternoon.

The question of incentives has already been mentioned. I believe that the incentive to attract talent to this job has nothing to do with salary. I am sure that all hon. Members who have served in that capacity would agree. What about salary or pension eligibility?

466 Are they uppermost in the minds of former Ministers and other hon. Members when they reflect on whether to take on the additional responsibility? That is surely nonsense. I do not believe that that is what discourages hon. Members from contemplating that alternative career path to the ministerial route.

We then come to the issue of volunteers. When I was my party's Chief Whip and had some minor considerations to reflect on—sadly, we do not get very many opportunities—I can tell hon. Members that there was no lack of very able volunteers. I have never heard that other political parties ever had difficulty in getting people to volunteer to be Chairs of Select Committees. The incentive argument is, frankly, absurd.

§ Mr. Forth

Without wanting to tread on overly delicate territory, would the hon. Gentleman concede that his argument might not apply in respect of the Chairmen's Panel? The work and the perception of the work of a Chairman of a Select Committee in comparison with that of a member of the Chairmen's Panel is very different. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the incentive argument might apply to the one, if not to the other?

§ Mr. Tyler

I agree precisely with the right hon. Gentleman—indeed, that was my next point. It looks as though we collude on these occasions, but far from it. I would not want to put the right hon. Gentleman in a difficult position with the new leader of his party. Yes, of course what he says is true: the service that hon. Members give to the House in chairing Standing Committees is unparalleled. Taking on that responsibility certainly brings hon. Members no benefit as regards constituency or media coverage. However, that is not the only responsibility that Members accept.

I can spare the right hon. Gentleman's blushes by acknowledging that some colleagues spend a lot of time serving on the House of Commons Commission, which can be an onerous responsibility. Millions of pounds of taxpayers' money is spent on the administration of the House, and the Commission supervises that to ensure that the job is done effectively. I am not aware of any significant personal benefits from carrying out that function. Occasionally, the Speaker might call someone on the Commission to speak, but I suspect that it would be on the grounds of their contribution to the debate.

§ Andrew Mackinlay

I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman in pointing out the extra work and additional contribution made by hon. Members in those positions, but the $64,000 question is where one stops and draws the line. That is what has to be answered this afternoon. What the hon. Gentleman says makes a compelling case to pay those Members more in a future Parliament and we will end up with two—tier MPs.

§ Mr. Tyler

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, which is why I tried to widen the debate, as he did, a few moments ago. If we do not discuss the context of the proposals, we are not doing our duty. I am sorry to see that the Leader of the House has left us temporarily and I hope that the Deputy Leader will be able to call him hack. Without proper assurances, many of those who supported the amendments that I tabled will feel that they have to vote against the motion and divide the 467 House. If we had been allowed to vote on those amendments, that embarrassment could have been avoided. The natural inclination of many of us would be make our points on the amendments and then let the motion proceed. I have no doubt that others will share the view of the hon. Member for Thurrock—now that we have been denied that opportunity, if the House is divided he will gain support from other hon. Members. I want to return to the issue of incentives. The remit that the House gave—or was it the Government; I am not sure exactly how it was devised—to the SSRB precluded a discussion about the wider issue of incentives and who else should be considered. In that respect, the SSRB has answered the question that it was given, but it was the wrong question. That puts us in an invidious position.

I endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), which is accepted on both sides of the House: adequate resources to ensure a degree of independence from reliance on Government information and data is critical to making Chairs of Select Committee as effective as possible.

§ Sir Nicholas Winterton

The hon. Gentleman is displaying his case in an analytical way that is very helpful. I remind him that the SSRB was fairly specific in respect of the list of Committees whose Chairmen would receive remuneration, but that its recommendation clearly states that the final decision on which Committees to include should be determined by the House itself. However, the House is being denied that opportunity this afternoon. I ask the rhetorical question: why?

§ Mr. Tyler

I echo that rhetorical question. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will ask it again later, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

My central point is that I believe that we are being asked to adopt a piecemeal approach to a matter that is very important for the reputation of Parliament, the way that it operates and the sort of people that are attracted into different jobs here. We have been taken into this rather absurd and narrow cul de sac by the way in which the SSRB remit was devised, by the report that it made and by the way in which we are having to deal with the motion this afternoon.

That is most unfortunate. It would not be appropriate for the SSRB to look at the wider issues. It is asked to do very specific tasks. Its responsibility, background and experience are not appropriate when it comes to deciding how the House should remunerate those key people who serve the nation through serving the House.

Another body—perhaps the Modernisation Committee, I do not know—will have to look at the wider issues. I hope that the Minister will give the House a specific assurance that the matter is not a fait accompli and that we have not reached the end of the road in respect of it. The Government must recognise that there are wider and very serious concerns on all sides of the House. Those matters have been represented in the amendments in today's Order Paper, and in this afternoon's debate. It would not be appropriate to refer the matter again to the SSRB. Only this House, with the advice of an appropriate Select Committee, can make these important decisions. The future reputation of hon. Members as effective scrutineers of what the Executive do is at stake.

§ Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)

As Chairman of the Liaison Committee, I should like to make a few remarks in response to the arguments that have been advanced. First, what we are discussing today is not a choice between pay and extra staff. When I first became Chairman of the Committee, I had discussions with every other Select Committee Chairman. I was overwhelmingly impressed by the sheer inadequacy of the support provided to the Committees.

I made a recommendation to the House of Commons Commission, which fortunately it accepted, that we should have an independent review and that that review should include the membership of the National Audit Office, so that everyone could see that it was absolutely objective. The review took place, and made major recommendations in respect of changes to the back-up provided for Select Committees. In fairness to the Government and to the Commission, I must say that both have accepted the recommendations.

The problem of those in the process of being recruited at the moment is thus being addressed. The problem that we are discussing today is separate, and I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) somewhat.

I spent 22 years on the Front Bench, but for most of that time I was on the wrong side of the House. I want to assure Opposition Members glumly anticipating a similar experience that the House must recognise that Front-Bench Members of all Opposition parties put in an enormous amount of work, with minimal back-up. Often, they have to respond at very short notice to statements and so on. If they go unrewarded, they do so in the hope of rewards in the future, when their party comes to government.

Today's proposal is, like the proposal on staffing, the result of an independent review. The recommendation comes not from the House of Commons but from the Senior Salaries Review Body. The list that was referred to was compiled by the SSRB, not the Government. My reading of the report suggests that the list is based on the division into investigative and non-investigative functions. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Wintertor.) is the Chair of the Procedure Committee, and I make the point to him that the report recommends that the final choice in respect of the list should be left to the House of Commons.

The Government has acted appropriately in putting forward the list recommended by the independent SSRB review. Unfortunately, there is no provision today to allow hon. Members to discuss amending that list. For example, hon. Members might have decided to remove some Committees from the list: one that is listed, which I will not name, incurs a minimal amount of extra work. By contrast, if the amendment tabled by the Chair of the Procedure Committee had been selected, I would have supported it, as I think that there is a case to be made for his Committee's inclusion. I hope that that will be borne in mind, and that we will be able to put forward some recommendations before the next SSRB review in the spring.

§ Sir Nicholas Winterton

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but the SSRB recommendations state that the final decision on the Committees to be included in 469 the list should be made by the House. That means that the House does not have to accept the SSRB's recommendations. Does it not seem extraordinary that we have no opportunity today to consider amendments that might amend that list—bearing in mind the reservations expressed by the right hon. Gentleman about a Committee that has been included?

§ Mr. Williams

I believe that that would have been much more in the spirit of the findings of the report—but I must be careful, as I value my good relationship with the Chair. I am not aware of the procedural background or the precedents in respect of amendments to motions of this kind. It might have been helpful if the House had been able to amend the list, but the hon. Gentleman must pursue that matter with the Chair.

Some of the men and women who chair Select Committees have indicated that they may not take the pay. As I pointed out, that is up to them, and it is no reason for them to oppose the recommendation. No one is going to force feed them money, but they are able to choose whether they take the salary on offer.

The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) is Chair of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. I have served with him for some time. His Committee has recommended that Chairs should not be able to have a double income. Does he believe that they should be allowed to accept an income from articles about the work of their Committees? I think that the answer may be implicit in what he has said, and I do not expect him to answer me now. He has undertaken that he will give advice to Select Committee Chairmen, and I hope that he will consider the matter before he and the House of Commons Commission compile that advice.

The salary involved is not princely like a Minister's salary. It is less than half what a Parliamentary Private Secretary gets. In terms of career structure, being a Select Committee Chairman is a start, but it is not on the same track as a PPS. I shall say why that is doubly unfair.

Most hon. Members want to have experience as a Minister. Any hon. Member who has carried out the duties of such a post will recognise the privilege of being able to do something with politics. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) and other hon. Members have pointed out, it seems wrong that there is a tendency for those, such as myself, who have enjoyed the enormous privilege of being a Minister to step down from the preferred track and immediately or relatively quickly switch across to the other track, thereby excluding those who have never had ministerial experience.

§ Andrew Mackinlay

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying that. I did not wish to interrupt his flow because I totally agree with him. Equally, it should at least be a convention in the House that, if a person accepts the chairmanship of a Select Committee, he or she will not accept an offer from a Prime Minister to become a junior Minister in the lifetime of that Parliament. What happens is that the Prime Minister phones up and says, "Would you like to be Under- 470 Secretary of State for paperclips and statues?" and they say, "Yes", and ditch the Select Committee pretty damn quick. That is the great tragedy.

§ Mr. Williams

Part of the trouble is that most hon. Members are in politics not just to chair Committees, with respect. We chair Committees because we feel that it is a job that needs doing, and some of us get a perverse sort of kick out of doing it. Very few people who are elected to the House do not have some ministerial ambition, and there is nothing wrong with that ambition. The chairmanship route is limited in the time that the post can be occupied. A ministerial post is only limited by the good will of the Prime Minister of the day. Many people carry on for 10 or 15 years in government; others never have the good fortune to experience that. So it is important that the chairmanships that are on offer should not be given as compensation to those who have experienced ministerial office, as they have already had a Minister's salary and the redundancy pay that they get as a Minister.

May I put in a bid to the Minister in support of what various hon. Members have said? Other hon. Members do jobs that are singularly unrewarding. I am enjoying my job as Chairman of the Liaison Committee, but frankly, I can think of nothing more horrendous that being condemned to chair Standing Committees. Many Members enjoy that very much, but they give up an enormous amount of time. They also lose a lot of political opportunity to spend their time in more politically advantageous activities. So I ask the Minister—again, he need not make any firm commitment—to discuss with the Leader of the House the possibility of setting up a similar review for the Chairmen's Panel to find out whether those Chairmen should also be included in some way. I leave that open, but my inclination is that they should be included and an independent review would at least be advantageous.

Of course I support the proposition before the House, but my final point is that, if anything, the role of Select Committees must become more important, or they will begin to wither. Hutton has presented Parliament and the Government with a clear choice. We must not fail to get our act together properly in allowing Select Committees to investigate the Executive by sorting out which witnesses they can call and what papers that they can demand, after the gulf that has been demonstrated by Hutton in what has been available to the Foreign Affairs Committee compared with what is being made available to the external inquiry.

If we do not grasp the nettle now and revisit the Osmotherley rules, which have been referred to, I suspect that more and more pressure will come from the public to take significant inquiries outside the control of the House and put them into more judicial hands. That would not be advantageous for democracy. We are here to investigate and interrogate the Executive, but the Executive have to understand that that imposes duties on them to be as co-operative as possible with the Committees.

§ Mr. Tyler

I am listening with great care to the case that the right hon. Gentleman is making, which reflects concerns on both sides of the House, and it is extremely helpful to hear it come from him. Given that, to some extent, the Liaison Committee started the ball rolling 471 about reviewing the role of Select Committees, will he consider whether his Committee might take the initiative in looking again at this issue, with the example of the Hutton inquiry in mind?

§ Mr. Williams

I have already initiated the start of such a review by the Clerks to the Liaison Committee, and the Public Administration Committee is undertaking such an inquiry. It is inconceivable that, post-Hutton—we have to let Hutton get out of the way so that we can take a less impassioned perspective—we will not try to pick out what lessons need to be addressed by the House and by the Government if the Select Committees are to be seen by the public, which is what matters, as fully able to hold the Executive to account. That is crucial for the House of Commons.

§ Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon)

I do not wish to be a fly in the ointment, but I am afraid that even though I would stand to benefit and my Select Committee is one of the four biggest in the House, I think that the entire concept of there being a scrutiny role separate from a Front-Bench or ministerial role is deeply intellectually confused and does not work in practice. I say that because it represents an attempt to graft the concepts of a Congress on to the practice of a Parliament, and I do not think that that works.

If we have separation of powers—if the Executive are separate from the legislature—we can have scrutiny Committees that work effectively, and people know when they are elected to that legislature that they are not aspiring to ministerial or Executive office. However, in the House, the attempt to make a distinction between those two things is very difficult to achieve in practice. I can see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is getting agitated.

§ Mr. Forth

How well my right hon. Friend knows me. Does he believe that this pass was sold when we set up the Select Committees back in 1979–80? What we are discussing is a more mechanistic aspect, but the role and functions of Select Committees was an aspiration that we expressed back then and subsequently turned into practice. If he wants to query the role, purpose and existence of the Select Committees, I might be rather with him on that, but does he not think that we have passed that point?

§ Mr. Curry

I do not think that we have passed that point. I am not aware that the rationale for setting up the Select Committees was to create a parallel career path. That notion has been introduced a great deal more recently to the debate. If we look at the reality, one wonders whether we will see a break between what is happening now and what will happen in the future.

Those Select Committee chairmanships that are in Conservative hands are very largely in the hands of ex—Ministers. I am an example and, although I hasten to add that my right hon. Friend the Member for North—West Hampshire (Sir George Young) would not benefit from the proposals, he is another example. Let us consider the most spectacular example of recent Labour practice. I think that I am right in saying that the Under—Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth 472 Affairs, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), was Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. He was then made a Minister. He then reverted to being Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, in which role he made some serious points about how much more preferable it was to be in that position. He then became a Minister again. The Chair of that Committee was filled by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who had recently resigned from the Government. That is an example of the practice. Are we going to say that there will be a total break from that practice? I regret that example—there is much that is ill about it. The arguments for some sort of quarantine period are valid.

I am pointing out the extent to which the present practice is likely to change if there is supposed to be a decent ethos. When we swap sides in this House, which I am sure will happen much more rapidly than the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), suggested a short while ago, I bet my bottom dollar that there will be a great many ex-ministerial candidates lining up to chair Select Committees. That is not a bad thing. The Select Committees are there to scrutinise Government Departments. Knowing how Departments work is an asset that can be brought to that role. It is not an indispensable asset—I am not saying that other qualities are not required—but it is important to have that asset too.

Of course, it would help if the control of the Whips were relaxed. The Leader of the House said that it has been; I will describe in a minute why I do not think that that has made a great deal of difference to the functioning of the Select Committees.

A practical consideration comes to mind. When people enter the House, are they going to sign up to say that they want to be on the scrutiny or on the ministerial ambition side? Will there be a red, green or blue channel—a trajectory that we describe for ourselves? Will it be possible to change channels? Can one buy oneself out of one channel and into the other if circumstances change? If the Prime Minister is good enough to say, "You've impressed me so much in your scrutiny role that I would like that dialectical and analytical mind at the service of my Government", is one going to say, "Sorry, guy, I've signed up for this role and I will forgo the services I can render to the nation in ministerial office"?

§ Andrew Mackinlay

Would it be unreasonable to expect someone who is selected to chair a major Select Committee at the beginning of a Parliament to shun offers from the Prime Minister during that Parliament? That is the point. It does not need to be in perpetuity, but there should be a convention—a discipline that if one signs up to chairmanship, one should see it through that Parliament.

§ Mr. Curry

That would be one way to deal with my concerns. It depends on how prescriptive we want to be—creating ghettos, as it were, in which Members of Parliament function. There is a serious problem attached to that idea.

If we want to pay Select Committee Chairmen and get people to focus on the scrutiny role, what about members of the Committees? What about the handful of 473 members of each Committee who do most of the work, if we are blunt about it? Should we not reward them too? After all, the competitive demands on hon. Members' time make life difficult if they are going to be assiduous Committee members, especially with our silly new hours where Westminster Hall, the Chamber, Standing Committees and Select Committees are all competing for the same windows of opportunity for work.

§ Sir Nicholas Winterton

My right hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. How would he treat those who do all three tasks to which he referred: Westminster Hall, Standing Committees and Select Committees? Does he believe that they should receive some form of recognition?