---

Administration Committee

I think that the holy spirit will not go that far. That is testing faith to the limits. The Prime Minister should appear before a smaller Committee chosen by the House, rather than by those on the Front Benches. I hope that we will look into that in the coming years. It seems a natural development that that important constitutional innovation should involve not a very large group, but a small group of senior Members, who can focus on the issues. My final point relates to the Chairmen’s Panel. My understanding is that, hitherto, hon. Members could be tested and invited to join to find out whether they could make a good stab at things. I imagine that there will be logistical problem in the future. Someone—I do not know whether it is you, Sir—invites hon. Members to serve, but regardless of whoever makes the selection or the invitation, those selected will cross the rubicon and they will need some time to familiarise themselves. Something will be lost if new members can no longer be invited to get a feel for chairmanship, probably by chairing a less fractious Committee, and so on. I cannot understand how the incremental scale, which I oppose anyway, is logical. If it is based on time, it does not reflect the volume or difficulty of work. I have mentioned the Crossrail Bill, which could be considered for a year. Probably, some new hon. Members will be sufficiently skilled almost immediately, like ducks to water, to preside over the Committee that considers that Bill, but that would involve a very long commitment. We will create new problems in selecting, recruiting and inviting people to preside over Committees by instituting that incremental system. For all those reasons, although the House is not packed, I hope that I may be able to persuade some hon. Members to join me in the Division Lobby tonight to oppose the proposition that not only discriminates against my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, in particular, but has been shown during the debate to be ill thought through, perverse and illogical. At the very least, we should send the homework back for it to be done again. We should reject the dreadful creep of creating two-tier Members of Parliament and making additional payments to some of our colleagues.