---

Administration Committee

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for clarifying the history of the matter. In any event, I remain to this day implacably opposed to the payment of the Chairmen of Select Committees. I tabled a motion, which is on the Order Paper today, although it will not be selected, to repeal that decision. It is interesting that we were able to repeal other things on our hours. I wish that we could revisit that decision because that would a sensible and fair course. I mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich. She also intervened to pay tribute to the Chairmen of the Standing Committees. In case there is any misunderstanding, I also pay tribute to them. I recognise that they often require considerable concentration, precision and commitment to quite complicated issues. My limited experience was of chairing a special parliamentary Procedure Committee that was particularly fractious. One had to be conscious of the need to act almost in a quasi-judicial position and to ensure adequate time for the objectors to proposals to be able to articulate their case before Parliament. I found it a very demanding task. I do not want to denigrate the skills and dedication of our colleagues who fulfil that role as the Chairmen of Committees, but I return to the point that that is their choice, their style and their approach to the office of Member of Parliament. Some of us approach that in different ways. I cannot for the life of me understand how, in the 24 hours in a day, they somehow pedal faster. I suppose the job is so onerous that they could be given more Heineken to make them go faster. We are also creating new anomalies. When I intervened on the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), I asked about what would happen if a proposal was made to pay Opposition Members. That was a relevant question for me to ask, given that my case is to say, ““Look, no further.”” If we go back and look at the Hansard when we debated paying the Chairmen of Select Committees, we see that hon. Members said that the next suggestion would be to pay the Chairmen of Standing Committees. How prophetic that was. There is creep, and if the House passes these motions tonight there will be further anomalies. For instance, does the person who runs the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the British-American parliamentary group or the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body not work extremely hard? Incidentally, the co-chairman of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, in which I take some interest, is paid in the Dail Eireann, so our representative sits next to someone who gets emoluments when our person does not. I am not suggesting that those people should be paid; I am just saying that new anomalies are being created at every stage. Ministers, not Members of Parliament, carry on being paid during general elections. I understand that our colleagues who are the Chairmen of Select Committees had a hiatus in their payments. When Parliament was dissolved, their salary plummeted—presumably, after this evening, it will pick up again—but that could have an impact of pensions in certain circumstances. We are told that Ministers need compensation—it is highly justified, we are told, but I do not accept that—when they leave office. If that principle is good for them, presumably, it will be advanced in respect of the Chairmen to whom we have already decided to pay salaries and those whose payments will probably be endorsed by the House tonight. Such creep is unhealthy, and I do not say that facetiously; I say it very seriously. I hope that the Minister will give us some indication in his reply about the arithmetic of what proportion of Members will be paid in addition to the Back-Bench Member’s salary. Almost 90-odd members of the Government are paid extra, as are the Chairmen of Select Committee, and now the proposal is to pay the Chairman of Standing Committees. That would buttress my point about the fact that the proposal represents an unhealthy growth of patronage and the development of two tiers of Members of Parliament, which diminishes our democratic responsibilities. The other issue is the Liaison Committee, the Chairman of which has left the Chamber. I remember talking to a member of new Labour some time after the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) became Prime Minister. In fact, we were all new Labour, but that guy was hyper-new Labour. I told him that it would be a good idea if the Prime Minister appeared before a Select Committee. His response was, ““Mackinlay, I now know that you’re completely off your trolley.”” A few weeks later, the Prime Minister, to his eternal credit, said that he would appear before the Liaison Committee. That was an important departure, but, alas, people do not have ambition about providing scrutiny. I think that that Member has now received great advancement—I am very pleased for him—but he could not understand that it was logical that we should make such progress. The Prime Minister, to his credit, on his own initiative, said that he would submit himself for questioning before the Liaison Committee, but that Committee is clearly not the best vehicle. We should have a smaller Committee—