| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
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,
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 work load and a substantial responsibility. There are some, however, who attach importance to the principle that all back-bench 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."
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?
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 back. 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
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.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |