---

Mr. Pike: Is it not true that to do the deal to prevent the hon. Gentleman being the Chairman of that Select Committee, a Labour Chairman was also removed from his Select Committee to comply with the arrangement, and that there was collusion on that?

Sir Nicholas Winterton: Indeed, the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Those who were responsible for that plot, which is exactly what it was, failed to go through the list thoroughly enough, however, and other distinguished Chairmen of Select Committees were affected, particularly the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, who had to resign and was not reappointed. It is time that the House of Commons took control of the appointment of Members to Select Committees, because the role of those Committees is to scrutinise the legislation brought forward by the Government of the day and to hold the Government of the day to account.

I will reluctantly support the motion because I am strongly in favour of there being an alternative career structure—another option—to ministerial preferment. Some people want to serve the House, and do not just

30 Oct 2003 : Column 479

come to this place to become Prime Minister or a Minister. Although they may change their mind, I believe that the role of the Back Bencher is essential to the successful and proper operation of our democratic procedures here in Parliament. I shall read out, if I may, a small extract from the Modernisation Committee's report, which started this whole debate. Paragraph 41 states:

"As long as Government office is the principal Parliamentary role to be recognised by additional payment, it need not be surprising that the role of scrutiny should be regarded by the world as inferior. Accordingly we recommend that the value of a parliamentary career devoted to scrutiny should be recognised by an additional salary to the chairmen of the principal investigative committees."

I deeply regret that no amendments to the motion have been selected and that we are not able to debate what the House seeks to establish. The report continues:

"We envisage such committees including the departmental select committees and other major committees of scrutiny such as the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration Committee, together with the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee, European Scrutiny Committee and Procedure Committee."

Clearly, it is somewhat invidious for me, as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, to speak on that, but I do so because, as I said in an intervention earlier, I am in the last quarter of my parliamentary career and I therefore believe that I can speak with impartiality about the importance of that Committee. I believe that the Senior Salaries Review Body was wrong to remove the Procedure Committee from the list of Committees whose Chairmen it particularly specified should receive remuneration. I say that because the Procedure Committee is not just a domestic Committee of the House. It goes way beyond that. For example, let us consider the inquiry that we are currently undertaking into Sessional Orders and resolutions of the House that are moved at the beginning of every new Session of Parliament. That is not just domestic—we needed to take evidence from the Home Office, a very important Department, on that matter. Local government issues are also involved in respect of that matter, as is the whole issue of law and order. Not only are we doing an important job of scrutiny but we are doing an investigative job at the same time.

I also emphasise, as I did in an intervention earlier, that the SSRB, in recommendation 1, which relates to paragraph 2.21, states:

"Payment should be made only to the Chairmen of the departmental Select Committees, and to the Chairmen of the externally focused 'cross-departmental' committees such as the following: Environmental Audit, European Scrutiny, Human Rights, Public Accounts, Public Administration, Deregulation and Regulatory Reform and Statutory Instruments."

It then goes on to say, rightly, that the final decision on which Committees to include should be determined by the House itself. That was the very point made by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who chairs with great distinction the Liaison Committee. It seems extraordinary to me that the House is being denied the opportunity, in this motion, of properly debating and deciding which Committees should be included among those whose Chairmen are to be paid.

30 Oct 2003 : Column 480

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification from the Chair on a point arising from what the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) said. Was it decided that the motion could not be amended, or was it Mr. Speaker's decision that amendments that would have encompassed the SSRB report's recommendations would have allowed changes to take place?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I tell the right hon. Gentleman that the motion before the House was certainly amendable, but Mr. Speaker had to make a selection in the usual way and no amendment was selected.

Sir Nicholas Winterton: It is for that very reason that I have not questioned the Chair. I am merely expressing a view in the light of the words in the SSRB's report, which I repeat:

"The final decision on which committees to include should be determined by the House".

The meaning of "the House" is this Chamber and especially its Back Benchers because the motion will be decided on a free vote. However, we have not been given the opportunity to decide which Committees to include. We have been limited—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be careful about his choice of words lest he appears to be questioning Mr. Speaker's impartiality and judgment when determining amendments. The House has a decision to make on the basis of the motion before it. It is in the hands of those who drafted the motion to advise the House on the Committee Chairmen who should be remunerated, if that is what the House decides.

Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful for your good, sensitive and sound advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am merely pointing out to the House, as I believe that I have the right to do, that the SSRB report on which the House is making a decision indicated that the

"final decision on which committees to include should be determined by the House itself."

I am pointing out, as a matter of fact, that the House is not being given the opportunity to decide that.

Mr. Tyler: I wonder whether I can help the hon. Gentleman because there might be a way out of his dilemma. If he were to vote against the motion, it would give the Treasury Front Bench the opportunity to come back with a revised motion reflecting adequately the SSRB recommendation.

Sir Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is my colleague on the Modernisation Committee. I am delighted that the Leader of the House entered the Chamber when the hon. Gentleman made that point because I was extremely supportive of one of his predecessors, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who spent some time as Chairman of that Committee. I believe that the present Leader of the House will try to guide and drive through positive and progressive changes to this House.

Mr. Forth: Oh no!

Sir Nicholas Winterton: I tell my right hon. Friend that I am a pragmatic man. We are not in government

30 Oct 2003 : Column 481

at the moment and the Leader of the House and his party are. When the Deputy Leader of the House winds up the debate, he may tell us that matters relating to the Committee Chairman who should remunerated could be the subject of speedy review and consideration. If he does, I shall certainly continue with my original intention of supporting the motion. However, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has told me that the best way to achieve such review would be to vote against the motion. Between now and the end of the debate, I shall clearly have to give that suggestion careful consideration.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that contrary to the implication of the SSRB report that we should be able to add to or take away from the list of Committees when it said that it was for the House to decide the final list, we are confronted with a situation in which our only choice is all or none, which is hardly much of a choice?

Sir Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman, who has been a Member of the House for somewhat longer than I, has uttered some wise words. It is unfortunate that the House faces such a decision. I want an indication from the Deputy Leader of the House in his winding-up speech of whether the matter might be subject to further review and attention.

Mr. Hain: I said in response to the shadow Leader of the House that the motion should not be the last word. However, I urge the hon. Gentleman not to vote the motion down because if he and his colleagues do that, that will be the end of it. We would not have an SSRB-supported recommendation, so there would be no authority for me to proceed. Surely the sensible way for him to achieve his objective is to establish the system with the motion and build from there.

Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that it would help the House if you could guide us. The Leader of the House suggested that despite the fact that the House has passed a motion in principle saying that there should be a provision for additional pay for Chairmen, if we reject a detailed motion to give effect to that today, that will be the end of the matter. Is it not more properly the case that if the motion were rejected, the Leader of the House would be obliged to put a new motion before the House to give effect to the vote of principle on a more acceptable basis? I would have thought that that is more likely than his suggestion that today is somehow final and that if we say no, that is the end of the matter. Surely the House's vote in principle is determinant. The motion is an attempt to implement the detail of the proposal but if we say no today, surely we could return to the matter.

---