---

Administration Committee

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. His contribution speaks for itself. There would be significant benefits to that proposal and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will address that point later and give careful consideration to the amendment. There are mixed views in the House about the establishment of a new Administration Committee, but I believe that it is a logical and sensible step. There are a number of areas in which the work of the previous five Committees clearly integrate, including catering, accommodation, the provision of catering services in meeting rooms, broadcasting and information. If we are seeking to communicate what goes on in this place more effectively, and to learn some of the lessons highlighted by bodies such as the Puttnam commission on the ways in which we can improve people’s knowledge and understanding of the workings of the House, it is important to remove the artificial divisions between broadcasting and information, and between some of the other functions of the previous five Committees. Those functions should logically come together. We need to take an integrated approach to running the House and the new Committee will play a valuable role in achieving that. The proposal that the Chairmen of Standing Committees should be paid has come from the Senior Salaries Review Body. The structure of the proposal on the table today has been discussed by the SSRB, although it is not its original proposal, as the Leader of the House pointed out. It is, however, a proposal that the body has studied and to which it makes reference in its report. Having had conversations with the Leader of the House and with the Chairman of Ways and Means, I understand the reservations about the SSRB recommendation. I was initially taken with the concept of an A list of senior Chairmen and a B list of those in more junior positions. I understand the questions about the viability of such a proposal, but it remains my view that a fragmented, time-based system such as that set out in the motion would not be the right way forward. Let us take the example of a distinguished, experienced Select Committee Chairman who stands down from that chairmanship at the end of the period specified in the rule that the Leader of the House has described. The former Chairman might return to the Back Benches without a role in the House, and then be invited by the Speaker to join the Chairmen’s Panel. That would be precisely the kind of person whom we would want to provide a senior, experienced and respected lead in Committees, the kind of Member who people could look up to and accept in a Chairman’s role. Is it really right that such a person should join the Chairmen’s Panel on a year’s probation, as a junior member? Should not they be brought in with the same status and stature, both in terms of the view of the House and of remuneration, that they would have enjoyed if they had carried on as a Select Committee Chairman? It is illogical to try to attract to the Chairmen’s Panel some of our senior people, perhaps a decent interval after they have left Government and returned to the Back Benches, or after they have given up a Select Committee chairmanship, if we are going to bring them in at the bottom of what is intentionally designed to be a career ladder. That is my big concern about the Government’s proposals. We also wonder whether it is right to introduce a system of increments for the first time. Such systems are common elsewhere, but we would, for the first time, be introducing the principle of more pay for longer service.