| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tyler: By inference—the Deputy Leader of the House is not referring to this—he does not accept that an incentive is needed to get the talent that we require for the Chairmen of Select Committees, so the incentive of additional payments is not in the Government's mind. Is that right?
Mr. Woolas: I confirm that that is absolutely the case. The Government certainly believe that, as the hon. Gentleman said earlier, financial incentives are not the reason why hon. Members put themselves forward for the chairmanships of Committees, but there is a paradox in the hon. Gentleman's argument. It is contradictory to say that financial incentive is not the motive while referring to the role of the usual channels, the coercion that he implies and the patronage that has been mentioned. I suggest that he cannot have it both ways.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us that assurance. I shall support the motion. However, my concern for the Committee that I chair is that it was recommended in the Modernisation Committee report, but it was dropped from the motion that was debated by the House. Could it be that because it was dropped—I do not know for what reason—it was overlooked by the SSRB? I do take
the assurance that the Leader of the House and the hon. Gentleman have given that this matter will be looked at as a matter of urgency.
Mr. Woolas: I should deal with a core question that has been asked, which relates to the selection of amendments, the scope of the report, and the difficulties that some hon. Members who wanted to table amendments have had. To highlight the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I must make it clear that the motion comes before the House as a result of the recommendation in the report of the SSRB. It is a House motion. That limits the remit of the motion that the Government are able to put before the House.
In essence, I ask the House to consider that what is behind the motion is the SSRB's recommendation that the House give its permission to spend money. We will be spending public money if the motion is agreed. If we wanted to extend the scope of the motion without the authority of the SSRB, the House would have difficulty with that.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: In several parts of the report, the SSRB states categorically that the decision as to which Committee chairmanship should be eligible for remuneration is one for the House, not for the SSRB and is not based on what it says in its report. Obviously, we can take the report into account, but the House should take the final decision and I think that the Chairman of the Liaison Committee shares that view.
Mr. Woolas: I recognise that that is the case, but we must read recommendation 2.22 very carefully. The hon. Gentleman is right that it says:
- "The final decision on which committees to include should be determined by the House itself."
My difficulty is that several hon. Members assumed in the debate that if the motion were defeated or withdrawn, we could revisit the issue with an extended list as quickly as is possible. That is not the case. We would have to go back to the SSRB because of the nature of the triggering of the expenditure.
Mr. Woolas: We will have to agree to disagree. That is the advice that I have been given.
Mr. Forth: I suspect that you are quite as puzzled as I am, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as to why the Deputy Leader of the House is saying what he has said and what it is supposed to mean. Does he not really mean that the Treasury limits the amount of money involved and what the Government can agree to in the resolution? There is no other limit.
The SSRB has made a recommendation, but it is for the House to take the decision, based on any resolutions before it and any amendments that may have been selected. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is
trying to fool us that there is some other inhibition on what we do. We have a motion, we make a decision and it surely has absolutely nothing to do with Mr. Speaker or his selection of amendments.
Mr. Woolas: With due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, it has everything to do with the selection of amendments. The recommendations make clear which Committees the proposals should cover and the motion reflects that. The Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House have no authority to bring such motions before the House other than that given us by the SSRB. The difficulty has arisen due to the decision that the motion is not to be amended.
Sir George Young: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is digging himself quite a big hole. It is within my memory that many recommendations made by the SSRB have not been implemented by the Government and were amended before they were put to the House.
Mr. Woolas: I am aware of that, but the point that is perhaps being lost in these interventions is that we have to carry public confidence in the measure. To do so, it is important that we can point to clear recommendations from the SSRB. I do not think that anyone would disagree with that.
Mr. Alan Williams: My hon. Friend may be getting into a mess on this, but it is not of his own making—[Hon. Members: "It is."] No, it is not. Whether we like it or not, the decision of the Chair was not to accept amendments. It was implicit in the report by the use of the words "such as" that the motion was amendable by the House. The decision not to select the amendments was not that of my hon. Friend and he should not give the impression that it was; it was a decision of the Chair.
Mr. Woolas: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. What he says is true.
Mr. Tyler: Just now, the hon. Gentleman gave himself a let-out. He, rightly, indicated the difference between the defeat of the motion, which would put everybody in some difficulty, and his withdrawing the motion. That is a clear way out, which would enable him to take into account the concerns on both sides of the House about what is being proposed.
Mr. Woolas: I think that Mr. Deputy Speaker would suggest that we do not take that road. If we accept that we want to recognise the status of the Chairmen of scrutiny Committees, the best way to achieve that is to accept the report and the motion.
Several other important points have been made, including suggestions from some Members about the role of Chairmen of Standing Committees. No one, either in this debate or in the House as a whole, would suggest that Chairmen of Standing Committees do anything other than a difficult job, which, as has been said, involves sacrifices on their part in terms of the restrictions on their other activities in the House. To add to the point made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), people often do not realise
that the Chairman of a Standing Committee is not allowed to vote on a Bill of whose Committee he has been the Chairman. On occasion, that can put those Members into extremely difficult situations vis-à-vis their constituents and their other commitments.I do not want to give the impression that the Government do not recognise the hard work of Chairmen of Standing Committees. In response to several comments made during the debate, I point out that the Leader of the House has only an influence over pay or remuneration for Standing Committee Chairmen. The matter is for the Chairmen themselves and for the Speaker and his Deputies, although of course the Leader of the House can take a view. However, today we are debating the merits of the case for pay for Chairmen of Select Committees, not the other points that have been raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) made an impassioned speech, pointing out that all Members should be treated equally. However, some Members are already remunerated for their work on behalf of the House, including, of course, the Speaker, his Deputies and some Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. The principle already exists.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock attacked the Whips and this measure, which he described as foolhardy, perverse and bonkers at various points in his speech, and asked where this principle would stop if we started to pay Chairmen of Standing Committees and Select Committees and other Officers of the House, it occurred to me that, given his expressed views, he might end up being the only hon. Member not to get extra remuneration if he were to go down that road. He even went as far as questioning why the junior Whips get paid—a very dangerous precedent. I would not confuse the lack of speeches that they are able to make in the House with their importance in the running of the House, and I suggest that that would not be a good road for him to go down.
Several important points have been made by right hon. and hon. Members. It was suggested that a time limit be put on the ability of a Member to be a Chairman of a Select Committee after having been a Minister. Again, the motion does not address that question, and of course there have been arguments for and against both points of view. What I would ask, however, is for the House to consider what has happened over the years under Governments of both parties. My view and the Government's view is that, on the whole, the Select Committee system has worked—it has been in place for nearly 25 years. It can improve, this is one measure that will improve it, and we ask the House to support that. Accusations cannot be fairly made, and it cannot be fairly imputed in any way, that any Chairmen of Select Committees have been subject to undue pressure or improper influence. I ask the House to consider the custom and practice in that regard.
A number of questions were asked, which I shall try to answer as quickly as I can. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan expressed his opposition to this measure, and set down some criteria that he would require to be met before he would feel able to support it. He talked about the openness of appointments, and I have tried to justify the arrangements in saying that there are good reasons why the usual channels system
works. He made points about representation of minority parties, which I have tried to answer as best I can within the constraints of the motion before the House. He also raised the question of suspicion of patronage, which I hope that I have answered satisfactorily.In conclusion, the system of departmental Select Committees has been in place for almost 25 years. It has grown considerably over the years in strength and in visibility. The Government are committed to strengthening the Committee system. As has been said, we have supported the recent increase of staff resources. The introduction of additional payments for Committee Chairmen is a further step intended to acknowledge the importance of their role and their work and to help create a parliamentary career path. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.
The House divided: Ayes 86, Noes 59.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |