I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

• Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003 Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003
• Household Waste Recycling Act 2003
• Sustainable Energy Act 2003
• Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003
• Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003
• London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003
• Hereford Markets Act 2003

May we please have the business for next week?

The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 3 NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Sexual Offences Bill [Lords].

TUESDAY 4 NOVEMBER—A debate on the quality of life in local communities on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, followed by a debate on African development strategies on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

WEDNESDAY 5 NOVEMBER—Opposition half-day [6th Allotted Day]. There will be a half-day debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by a debate on making a success of vocational education on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

THURSDAY 6 NOVEMBER—Motions to approve programming and deferred Divisions in Sessional Orders.

FRIDAY 7 NOVEMBER—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the following week will include: MONDAY 10 NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Water Bill [Lords].

TUESDAY 11 NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [Lords], followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the European Union (Accessions) Bill, followed by a debate on reforming the United Nations on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

I thank the part-time Leader of the House for giving us the business.

Mr. Speaker, you and the House may be aware that, as we speak, the memorial service for Sir Denis Thatcher is taking place. I would have been there if my duties had not kept me in the House, but I hope that you think it appropriate that we record the unique contribution that Sir Denis made to our public life. After all, without Sir Denis there would have been no Thatcherism. As we speak, the memorial service is, happily, packed to overflowing with the many, many friends and admirers of Sir Denis. My thoughts and, I hope, those of all Members present are with Lady Thatcher, her family and the many, many friends of Lady Thatcher and Sir Denis.

Is the part-time Leader of the House somewhat ashamed about the inadequacy of the amount of time allocated yesterday to an important debate on cannabis? I was shocked when I looked at Hansard this morning and noted that a mere 90 minutes of parliamentary time had been allocated to that important subject and that, of that 90 minutes, the three Front-Bench speeches took 70 minutes, allowing only four Back Benchers to share 20 minutes. Surely that cannot be right. It cannot be adequate that a matter of such importance, which raised much anxiety on the Government Benches, never mind across the House, was allowed only 90 minutes. Cannot the Government do something more sensible than that? It is not as though, sadly, we are pressed for time at present, Mr. Speaker, as you must be well aware—as am I. I make a plea that even if the subject cannot be revisited on this occasion, when it comes up in future proper time will be given so that Members on both sides of the House can make a proper contribution that reflects the real anxiety of their constituents.

Is the part-time Leader of the House able to do anything at all about the current disruption to communications between MPs and their constituents due to the wildcat strikes in the postal service? I hope that this matter is being given the close attention of the authorities in the House and the Post Office. It is bad enough to have communications generally disrupted, but knowing the value that we all place on the ability of our constituents to communicate with us and us with them, I hope that something is being done to ensure that those kinds of actions will not be allowed to get between us and our constituents. I hope that the part-time Leader can reassure us on that matter.

It is high time that we had a proper debate, rather than just brief exchanges, on the increasingly worrying matter of the Prime Minister, General de Chastelain and IRA decommissioning. If we look at Hansard, we find that, for example, on 27 October my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said:

"General de Chastelain has …made it quite clear that he never gave any additional information to the Prime Minister".—[Official Report, 27 October 2003; Vol. 412, c. 22.]

That is what he told the House against the background of the fact that on 22 October the Prime Minister had said that

"people would be satisfied if they knew the full details."—[Official Report, 22 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 634.]

We now have two dramatically different variations on this event. I felt genuinely sorry for the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy) who on 27 October found herself saying that

"the Prime Minister and the Taioseach have been able to learn more about the decommissioning event than was set out either in the brief statement issued last Tuesday by the two members of the Decommissioning Commision"—

and so on. That was her supposed response to the question. She went on to say, however, that the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach were

"left with a greater sense of the nature of the decommissioning event than would be apparent from the statement and the press conference alone."—[Official Report, 27 October 2003; Vol. 412, c. 21.]

What on earth does that mean? It strikes me that she was being put in the almost impossible position of trying to cover up or fudge what is a clear difference in an account of very important events by the Prime Minister on the one hand and the general on the other. Finally, she found herself saying that

"the two commissioners were able to convey and build confidence in both the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach that the event that they had seen was substantial and significantly more than had happened in the past."—[Official Report, 27 October 2003; Vol. 412, c. 26.]

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said finally that

"certain information was given to us by General de Chastelain and I had very much hoped that it would have been possible to provide the full information to everybody."—[Official Report, 29 October 2003; Vol. 412, c. 300.]

We must get to the bottom of this matter because it is distressing that the Prime Minister of this country, dealing with a vital and sensitive issue, should find himself, on the face of it, so much at odds with someone of such eminence and integrity as General de Chastelain. My plea to the part-time Leader is that we have proper time allocated in the House for this matter. It is only a pity that the general cannot come here and give his account of events—perhaps a Select Committee would like to follow that up. The Prime Minister should certainly come here to allow us to question him on what has gone on in these delicate areas, so that we can get to the bottom of the matter and move on.

I am delighted that the shadow Leader is in such good, frisky form, as he has been a bit subdued lately. I congratulate him on his triumph, after a long and arduous campaign, in finally getting rid of his leader and his Chief Whip, too. I wish him every luck in the forthcoming reshuffle. I see that his party's short experiment with democracy has given way to leaders once again emerging from smoke-filled rooms—a Magic Circle method of choosing a leader that I thought it had abandoned 40 years ago.

On the right hon. Gentleman's specific points, I share his thoughts and sympathies with the Thatcher family, and I agree that Sir Denis Thatcher was unique in every way. On the question of time for a debate on cannabis, I listened to what the right hon. Gentleman had to say, but the fact is that the issue was debated vigorously yesterday, and the Government brought forward that debate for precisely that reason. On the question of disruption of communications through the post, clearly everybody wants the dispute to be settled quickly. I am sure that Post Office workers and Royal Mail staff want it to be settled quickly, as do the management and the Government. Talks are now taking place and I hope that they succeed. Ultimately, all disputes end in a negotiated settlement, which is how this one will end, so I hope that that can be achieved sooner rather than later.

The question of General de Chastelain and Northern Ireland is really one of the right hon. Gentleman's worn out old gramophone records. The issues have been fully answered successively. Indeed yesterday, while the right hon. Gentleman was away plotting to get rid of his leader, the Prime Minister answered the question fully and clearly. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), answered it fully and clearly on Monday and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland answered it fully and clearly yesterday. It is time that the state-funded Conservative party started to support the Government on getting a resolution to the Northern Ireland situation. When we were in opposition. we supported the Conservative Government and John Major when he took the peace process forward. Rather than stabbing us in the back, it is time for the Conservative party to support us in getting a resolution to the crisis.

Will the Leader of the House find an early opportunity to make a statement available to the House, or to make one himself, on the apparent confusion about the Government's policy on reform of the House of Lords? He mentioned postal communications, but there seems to be a real communication problem between No. 10 and the Department that we have learned to love as DCAF.

The Lord Chancellor recently said publicly to hon. Members that he does not regard the door on the future democratic and representative composition of the second Chamber to be closed. If that is true, it widens the scope of the consultation that is taking place on the Government's September White Paper and the response to the Joint Committee in July. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome that, as do I, but it puts the whole issue back in the melting pot. It seems that there could be a rush towards introducing a tinkering Bill on reform after the Queen's Speech. If so, there will not be an opportunity for the consultation that the Lord Chancellor suggests.

The Leader of the House will recall that this House voted substantially against an all-appointed second Chamber, because he too voted that way. If we are to revisit the issue, will he assure us that we will hear a statement about the Government's position and that there will be a proper opportunity for cross-party debate by whatever mechanism he considers appropriate?

Will the Leader of the House clear up an additional mystery that arose yesterday? When responding to a question from the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), the Prime Minister gave the impression that there would be an open debate with a free vote at some point. What will the debate be about? Will it simply be about the Bill? Will it be a debate on wider issues? Will there be a free vote?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to clarify the situation—at least for him, because I think that it is perfectly clear. We are consulting on a relatively straightforward Bill to abolish the hereditary peers, which I am sure his party will want to back, and to establish an independent appointments commission to address non-party peers and to check the propriety of party-appointed peers. That is a specific exercise. However, we have made it clear that in the longer term, given that the House could not agree on an option for reform, the door remains open to bring about a settlement that will survive and be sustainable in the long term. As the Prime Minister made it clear, we will want to consult on that and people will want to express their views freely. There is a distinction between the completion of the consultation exercise and the introduction of subsequent legislation and finding out, in the long term, whether we can reach consensus on a more democratic alternative which, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, I voted for earlier this year—along with him, I guess.

My right hon. Friend is aware that 6 June next year marks the 60th anniversary of the D-Day landings. Many hon. Members from both sides of the Chamber are worried about the organisation of that. As we approach Armistice Sunday, will he give us time for a full debate on the issue so that hon. Members' worries may be eased?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. We obviously want the 60th anniversary to be celebrated appropriately and be well organized because many people risked or gave their lives in that important episode and we will want to honour them appropriately. I shall ensure that those responsible listen to his point.

Will the Leader of the House find time to get an answer for Members of Parliament on the Government's exact definition of the word "sustainable", as it is so incontinently applied across much of their policy, especially in respect of planning? There are many large planning applications in the southeast, southwest and elsewhere in England where sustainable development is much trumpeted by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, but no one can provide an exact definition of sustainable. Will the Leader of the House bend his considerable intellect to get us the definitive answer on what sustainability means in the Government's rather erratic lexicon?

I regard the hon. Gentleman as one of the most sustainable Members of the House and long may he remain so. I shall certainly consult the scribes to see whether I can get him a sensible definition.

In the next few days, the Energy Minister will visit Japan. Part of the purpose of the visit is to persuade the Japanese Government once again to buy plutonium fuel from the United Kingdom. Given that there is an industrial dispute at Sellafield, that Sizewell B is out of action and that both our nuclear generators are technically bankrupt, is it sensible to ship plutonium from one end of the planet to the other? Does my right hon. Friend think that we should have a full debate on the international plutonium trade?

My hon. Friend has the opportunity to apply for a debate in the normal way and I will take note of his request. When I was Energy Minister, for all of five months, I had to grapple with those issues and am well aware of the concerns that he expresses.

Does the Leader of the House acknowledge the importance of debating the fishing industry before the Fisheries Council meets towards the end of the year, because the possible closure of the North sea fishery is on the agenda? I anticipate that he will have more difficulty arranging that this year because the Queen's Speech is slightly later than usual and there is always pressure on debating time on the Floor of the House after that. Will he assure me, however, that by hook or by crook—by using some device—he will give those of us with fishing interests a proper opportunity to ensure that Ministers are fully briefed from the Floor of the House before the Fisheries Council meets?

This is obviously an important matter to the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues with fishing interests. His views are well founded. As he knows, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is well practised at keeping the House informed and comes before the House at every appropriate opportunity, as do the Ministers of State.

A fortnight ago, I raised large-scale voluntary transfers with my right hon. Friend and, in particular, the situation in my district council area of Stroud. Will he go back again to our right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to gauge what is happening with the ballots and to make it clear that it is in no way helpful for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to get drawn into the decision-making process? The decision should be an entirely local one and the ODPM should have no say in whether it is right or wrong for a local authority to get rid of its council stock.

My hon. Friend makes a strong case. The fact that he has raised it again will no doubt impress the Deputy Prime Minister and I shall draw it to his attention.

I thank the Leader of the House for his positive response to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on the preparations for the 60th anniversary of D-Day, the last big opportunity for veterans to remember everything that went before and to commemorate those who died. The right hon. Gentleman may be unaware of the fact that the Royal British Legion states in unusually strong language that the present preparations are "nothing less than insulting" to the veterans because they are so low key. In particular, it is anxious that this country should be represented at that commemoration event at the highest possible level, as the Americans will be. When he takes up the issue, will he emphasise that point?

I was not aware of that matter, but I shall certainly take it up because the interests and aspirations of the Royal British Legion need to be treated with the utmost seriousness, and they deserve proper reflection.

At a time when the nights are drawing in and it is getting darker, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to congratulate my constituents and many others who, in the past few days, have celebrated Diwali, the festival of light? Can he send a clear message to everyone in our many diverse communities that we in this country will continue to stand for inclusiveness, multiculturalism, tolerance and understanding between people of all faiths?

I thought for a moment that my hon. Friend was going to refer to "something of the night" and would be ruled firmly out of order. In fact, he made an important point that we should rejoice with the communities that celebrate Diwali. We salute, too, the fact that we live in a multicultural, multi-faith and multiethnic society, and are proud to do so because it, and especially the festival of light, enriches us.

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate, ideally in Government time, on the programme of post office closures? I received notification yesterday that two more post offices in my constituency, in Ashingdon and Hockley, have been earmarked for closure. Both closures will cause particular problems for my constituents, who will have to travel further for post office services. Many Members on both sides of the House are affected by the issue, so can the Government provide time for a debate to try to drive home the point that it is of serious concern?

It is indeed serious for many communities, and it is quite proper for the hon. Gentleman to raise it. However, the phenomenon has being going on for decades; it is not particular to our Government, and is the outcome of many different factors. The hon. Gentleman has plenty of opportunity to raise his constituents' interests in the debates that are already taking place in Westminster Hall or, indeed, to apply for such a debate himself.

Has my right hon. Friend seen press reports this week saying that the Government propose to abolish the Commission for Racial Equality and replace it with a single equality body? Would it not be appropriate for the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House on this important matter, bearing in mind the comments that my right hon. Friend has just made about a multicultural society? Can he arrange time for a debate on this important subject before the proposals are taken further?

I shall draw those comments to the Home Secretary's attention. As my hon. Friend is aware, the proposal for a new commission for equality and human rights was made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which called for an integrated institutional support for human rights and equality. That is the remit of the new body. I am sure that my hon. Friend's request for an early debate will be listened to most carefully. Of course, he has alternative avenues for securing a debate himself.

I am sure that I am not the only Member who continues to be heavily lobbied by pensioner organisations in their constituencies on the Government's plans to do away with the pension book and pay pensions directly into people's bank accounts. Of the 913,000 pensioners in Scotland, 15 per cent. still do not have a bank account, and 59 per cent. would prefer payment by pension book. Can we have an early debate to address my constituents' many fears and anxieties on the issue?

I know of the fears and anxieties, because I have heard them expressed by pensioners in my constituency, many of whom do not have bank accounts, could not operate one and have no intention of doing so. However, pensioners are still free to choose to retain the existing cash-based method rather than a bank account transfer. I encourage them to exercise that choice, and not be intimidated in any way by advice to the contrary. That is my message to them, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would echo it.

May I remind the Leader of the House of the democratic decision that the House made about its hours of operation and the timetable, and urge him not to find parliamentary time to discuss them again? Is he aware of the fact that although some hon. Members are dissatisfied by the decision, many others would be excessively dissatisfied if the issue were reopened?

The hon. Lady is always excessively dissatisfied.

Opposition Members would know.

Hon. Members who supported the decision would be excessively annoyed if the issue were reopened and any attempt were made to return to the previous hours.

I am acutely aware of excessive feelings on all sides of the argument, both for and against the hours that were decided. I can reassure my hon. Friend that, as I have said before, the hours that we now enjoy were decided by the House for the rest of this Parliament. In due course, we will review the hours and make a decision about what happens in the next Parliament. That was the decision that the House made and I intend to stick to it. Meanwhile, I welcome representations from my hon. Friend and others about the way in which things could be improved. There are many associated issues. For example, I discovered the other day that the Smoking Room is being closed prematurely. Members who want to go for a drink or simply want to spend the evening there find themselves shut out, perhaps only an hour after the last vote. That does not seem reasonable, and I hope that such issues can be dealt with properly and the interests of hon. Members protected.

Can we have an urgent debate in Government time on standards of reading? Given that improved literacy is a central prerequisite of children's ability to fulfil their potential, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the teaching of reading there should be no place whatsoever for the absurd advice of those teacher-training academics Kimberley, Meek and Miller, who said that

"within the psycho-semiotic framework, the shared reading lesson is viewed as an ideological construct where events are played out and children must learn to position themselves in three interlocking contexts"?

Again, I admire the hon. Gentleman's incredible memory and his felicity with a prepared question. Those researchers sound like a firm of solicitors rather than educational academics. However, to be serious, the hon. Gentleman is right that literacy is the foundation of knowledge, which is why we have given special emphasis to literacy hours and other forms of literacy support in primary education. As a result, compared with the situation in 1997, when I had ministerial responsibility for education in Wales and about half of our children were not reading to the required standard, three quarters are now reaching the standard and the number is rising. That is a genuine improvement, and the points made by the hon. Gentleman will be treated seriously.

May I remind my right hon. Friend of the annual slaughter of many of our fellow citizens who are guilty of nothing more than going to their place of work? There is an overwhelming need for legislation on corporate manslaughter to bear down on those employers who are profligate with the lives and safety of their employees. Given that there was a manifesto commitment some years ago, can we have a clear statement from the Leader of the House that such legislation will be included in the Queen's Speech? If not, can we have an early debate to tease out from the Government when that legislation will be introduced?

My hon. Friend will obviously understand the standard reply that I have to give. I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech, but I am sympathetic to his point, which was well argued. I hope that it will be taken on board.

May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to an article by Thomas Harding in The Daily Telegraph today, and ask him to reconsider his response to a request from the shadow Leader of the House for a debate in the House on the misunderstandings that have arisen over the decommissioning process? I should like clarification of the law that forbids General de Chastelain from revealing things. That law is doubtful, and has been used in the House to silence people. It will figure in the forthcoming election, especially as the general himself was a hostage to the IRA, and led to the debacle that Monday when a statement on decommissioning was not forthcoming.

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the situation. I have answered the point already.

May I return briefly to the welcome announcement about the commission for equalities and human rights, and ask that an early debate might centre on the need, which stands side by side with that announcement, for a single equalities Bill, so that each of the strands that the commission will cover can be enforced with equal vigour?

I shall draw my hon. and learned Friend's point to the attention of the Secretary of State. I am grateful that she welcomes the announcement of the new organisation, which will improve the rights of all those whose interests it seeks to address.

Further to the point so powerfully raised by my right hon. Friend the full-time shadow Leader of the House, is the part-time Leader of the House aware that the postal strike has spread to Berkshire, Coventry, Oxford and beyond? Is he aware that it is causing grave problems not only as regards the ways that Members in all parts of the House can communicate with their constituents, but with regard to the provision of payments through the Department for Work and Pensions to pensioners and other vulnerable people in our society? Is he also aware that Adam Crozier, the chief executive of the Royal Mail, said:

"There is a fair amount of intimidation by unions in London, which is illegal"?

Is it not about time that we debated the issue, or at least that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a statement to the House?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, talks are under way between management and the unions in an effort to resolve the dispute. It is in their interest and in the interest of all of us, that that is done as soon as possible. I understand the difficulty of communications with constituencies. There are, however, two alternatives—e-mail and telephone—with which we can get by meanwhile and on which we can rely. [Interruption.] I know that the shadow Leader of the House does not do e-mail, but most other Members do. I admire the right hon. Gentleman's commitment to tradition. On the serious point made by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) about benefits, both the Royal Mail and the Department for Work and Pensions have contingency plans to minimise the effects of any action, to ensure that anybody, including pensioners, who is entitled to benefits or other payments receives them.

In the Leader of the House's announcement of the provisional business for the week after next, he allocated time for consideration of the remaining stages of the Water Bill. Would he consider extending the period of that debate, as many on both sides of the House fear that a substantial part of the debate will be taken up by discussion of fluoridation, although many other parts of the Bill are equally important? I draw particular attention to the concerns of Members from the southwest, where the highest water charges for the cleaning up of 30 per cent. of the nation's beaches are being paid for by 3 per cent. of the population.

I recognise the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. A full day has been allocated for the debate, which can be programmed. No doubt those responsible will bear his comments in mind.

Has my right hon. Friend seen today's issue of the Yorkshire Post, which carries an article about a serious firework incident in Eckingi on in my constituency? It seems that a mortar bomb firework was strapped to a rocket and went through a ceiling, seriously damaging a child's cot. It is lucky that Joel Eason was not in the cot at the time, or he could have been killed. My right hon. Friend might remember that on 16 October I raised the matter of fireworks with him at business questions and asked for a statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in order to implement the Fireworks Act 2003, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan). The existing legislation should be used proactively to co-ordinate the various agencies involved. We have not had a statement, written or verbal, from the Secretary of State. Such a statement would be welcome, so that my constituents could see what effective action is being taken for the future.

I have not had a chance to see the Yorkshire Post, but I agree that the phenomenon—the problem of firework fiends who are terrorising neighbourhoods and individuals—is serious and needs to be dealt with. A case in Llanelli was reported in my local Evening Post. A firework was unleashed through the front window of a pensioner's home and hit her. Three men have been arrested. As my hon. Friend says, that calls for a much more proactive attitude on the part of head teachers, youth workers, the police and local authorities to make sure that fireworks can be enjoyed safely on Guy Fawkes day, rather than the new breed of explosive fireworks that are almost weapons, which are unleashed on neighbours and members of the community. It should be a time when children can enjoy the spectacle of fireworks in safety, not an opportunity to terrorise people.

Will my right hon. Friend make time available for an urgent debate on the storage of high, medium and low-level nuclear waste?

My hon. Friend has opportunities to apply for a debate himself, but I shall pass on his concerns to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

I heartily endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) about the reform of the hours. May I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that some of the opposition to the reforms might be diminished if he were to review public access to the Palace of Westminster, particularly during morning sittings?

I agree that we need to consider public access. It is one of the teething problems that have arisen as a result of the new hours—for example, many Members have told me that they find it difficult to arrange constituency visits. With the new sitting hours of the House, such visits can take place only on Monday. There are various options to overcome the problem. One is to install a glass window behind the Gallery. The way we treat our visitors must be examined in a broader context. We do not make them as welcome as we should. I am keen to look at that, but in the meantime I shall address my hon. Friend's point.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that every full-time member of staff whom we employ should be provided with a computer by the House? If he does agree, when will he introduce such a proposal, so that the current inequity between computers and staff is overcome?

My sympathies are with my hon. Friend. The matter is being considered and we hope to make an announcement in due course to see whether his request can be met.

Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the minimum wage? Is it not timely to consider its impact, particularly on employment? When it was introduced, some hon. Members thought that it might have a negative impact on jobs—an idea that might be described as having something of the right about it.

That would be a worthwhile debate. Many members of the state-funded Conservative party said—[Interruption.] Indeed, state-funded. In the last period, the Conservative party got more money from public funds than it raised through private donations. My hon. Friend makes an important point. There were accusations and allegations that millions of jobs would be lost. The about-to-be crowned leader of the Conservative party said that 2 million jobs would be lost as a result of the introduction of the minimum wage. In fact, 1.6 million new jobs have been created since the minimum wage was introduced, showing that we can have economic stability, full employment and high social standards.

I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the report published this week by the United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention entitled, "Afghanistan Opium Survey 2003" which, despite recording some encouraging progress, notes worryingly that in the past year opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan has increased, opium production has increased dramatically, and the geographical spread of opium planting has reached 28 of the 32 provinces of Afghanistan. Given that the destruction of the opium trade was part of the raison d'etre for the war on Afghanistan, which I supported, and given that 90 per cent. of the heroin on the streets of his constituency and mine originates as poppies in Afghanistan, is it not time for a Foreign Office Minister to make a statement to the House about these worrying findings, or at least for a debate, so that we understand the implications and hear what the Government propose to do about the matter?

I have not had a chance to read the report to which my hon. Friend refers, but I have been informed of its contents, which are indeed very worrying. I am grateful to him for raising this matter and I shall certainly draw it to the Foreign Secretary's attention to see what can be done. Clearly, the threat is very disturbing indeed.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you prior notice. I am indebted to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris), who, as you know, alerted me to the matter that I wish to raise. Last Thursday, the hon. Gentleman, who is a good cross-party friend of mine, had a researcher, Donald Campbell, working from his constituency office and seeking to access his parliamentary e-mail. Having logged on to the parliamentary data and video network, however, the researcher was amazed to find that constituency files relating to my constituency work had been opened to him. Obviously, that had not been his intention.

I have discussed the matter with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart and we are not sure whether this very serious breach of confidentiality occurred because only three Members' names feature between us in the alphabetical list of Members' names or because both of us have the wisdom to employ Scots parliamentary assistants who share the name Campbell. Whichever is the reason, I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will share my concern that the parliamentary data and video network must be completely secure. We have written a joint letter to the head of the network, but as a matter of urgency, may I ask you to make your own inquiries so that the constituents of all hon. Members know that the system will be secure? Of course, no harm was done on this occasion, but on other occasions constituents need to know that only people authorised to log on in working for an individual Member will see that Member's constituency files.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to my attention. It is a very serious matter that has serious implications, as he pointed out. I have instructed the Serjeant at Arms, who is responsible for these matters, to conduct a thorough and complete investigation, and I will get back to the hon. Gentleman.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any indication from the Secretary of State for Health that a statement will be made about the shortage of suppliers of reading spectacles, or, alternatively, a request from the Leader of the House and other ageing Cabinet Ministers asking that the size of the Dispatch Box be increased, raising it to a height at which their papers are brought within their field of vision, so that they do not have to plant rather incongruous volumes on top of it to enable them to avoid using reading spectacles when making their statements?

If the hon. Gentleman has any problem with reading spectacles, there is a good company in Glasgow.

I beg to move,

That this House—

1. takes note of the Report of the Review Body on Senior Salaries on Pay for Select Committee Chairmen in the House of Commons presented to Parliament on 17th July (Cm. 5673);

2. approves the Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges on Pay For Select Committee Chairmen (HC 1150); and endorses the principles set out in paragraph 16 of that report; and

3. expresses the opinion that—

(a) with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament, the salary of a Member should be £12,500 per annum higher than the figure determined in accordance with the provisions of the Resolution of the House of 10th July 1996 in respect of any period during which he is the Chairman of a select committee appointed under Standing Order No. 152 (Select Committees related to government departments), the Environmental Audit Committee, the European Scrutiny Committee, the Committee of Public Accounts, the Select Committee on Public Administration, the Regulatory Reform Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights or the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, other than to the extent that the provisions of sub-paragraph (c) apply;

(b) a period begins for the purpose of sub-paragraph (a)—

(i) with the day on which the Member becomes Chairman of such a committee, or

(ii) with the beginning of the next Session of Parliament, in the case of a Member who became Chairman before that time;

and ends on the day on which the Member ceases to be Chairman (or, if he is Chairman of more than one such committee, he ceases to be Chairman of the last of those committees);

(c) there shall be disregarded for the purpose of subparagraph (a)—

(i) any period which is of less than 24 hours duration; and

(ii) any period, or part thereof, in respect of which the Member is also entitled to an additional salary by virtue of any provision of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975;

(d) reference to any Committee in sub-paragraph (a) shall—

(i) if the name of the Committee is changed, be taken (subject to paragraph (ii)) to be a reference to the Committee by its new name; and

(ii) if the functions of the Committee become functions of a different Committee, be taken to be a reference to the Committee by whom the functions are for the time being exercisable;

(e) the provisions of paragraph (2) of the Resolution of the House of 10th July 1996 relating to Members' Salaries (No. 2) shall apply, with effect from 1st April 2004, to a salary determined in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph (a) asihey apply in relation to a salary determined in accordance with the provisions of that Resolution; and

(f) the Speaker shall have authority to interpret these provisions and to determine rules from time to time for their implementation.

In response to the last point of order, may I add that there are many such good shops in Neath as well?

The system of departmental Select Committees established by the House in 1979 has grown in stature and influence over the past two decades. The Committees have added significantly to the ability of the Commons to scrutinise and hold to account major Departments. The opportunity for sustained and close questioning in Committee provides a degree of forensic scrutiny that it is simply not possible to attain in other forums such as the Floor of the House of Commons. It is not surprising that the system of Committees that exercises that scrutiny function is generally regarded as one of the most important and effective mechanisms for ensuring ministerial accountability. The Government welcomes that. As my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), was keen to point out, good scrutiny means good government.

Since 1979, the Committees' workload has increased markedly. In addition to the task of holding ministers to account, they are responsible for a range of duties including the scrutiny of draft Bills, independent regulators and executive agencies. It was in recognition of the scrutiny Committees' important role, expanding tasks and increasing influence that the Modernisation Committee, then chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston, examined the extra burden that fell to Committee staff and Chairmen. The report recommended an increase in the resources available to the Committees, including a new central unit of specialist support staff the—scrutiny unit, which is now fully up and running—and a review of each Committee's staffing needs; a significant increase in staffing is now being implemented.

The Modernisation Committee also recommended that the Chairmen of the scrutiny Committees should be paid an additional salary. The additional amount is proposed in recognition of the extra work that those Chairmen are expected to undertake and in the hope that it will go some way towards creating a career path in Parliament as an alternative to the ministerial route, highlighting the value that Parliament and the Government place upon the scrutiny function of the House.

Although there is undoubtedly a compelling argument for the payment of the Chairmen of Select Committees, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a certain incongruity, to put it no more strongly, about the fact that the composition of Select Committees, whose purpose is to scrutinise the Executive, is determined by representatives of the Executive? Is that not something about which a modernising Leader of the House, be he part-time or full-time, should be properly concerned?

Obviously, concerns about this matter were debated a little while ago; in fact, it was last year when the House took a decision on it.

I shall be candid: I am opposed to the proposed payment. I would be more satisfied, however, if there were to 132 a declaration of distance between the Government and the act of nominating or anointing people as Chairmen of Select Committees. For example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) was anointed to be Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs after the general election as—one has to say this; I do not say it in a nasty way—a consolation prize for losing office. If there is a new career path structure, Ministers should be kept out of it. There should be a period of quarantine between leaving ministerial office and being Chairman of a Select Committee.

My hon. Friend makes his point with characteristic vigour, and it is similar to that made by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), but there is also an additional point—we as the Labour party have addressed this matter by changing the rules under which Select Committee membership is decided. The parliamentary party now has an opportunity to consider names and make a decision. Perhaps that is a practice that other parties in this House might follow.

There are other parties in the House that would love to follow that practice, but unfortunately do not have fair representation in the membership of Select Committees, as the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) conceded on many occasions when he was Leader of the House. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered in proposing this extension of patronage the fact that no minority party in the House has a Select Committee Chairman, although they would be entitled to one in proportional terms, given the number of Select Committee Chairmen and the percentage of the composition of the House that is accounted for by minority parties? Will he alter these clear inequities before introducing measures for extending patronage?

I reject entirely the suggestion that the proposal is about extending patronage. It is a matter for the House to decide. Indeed, the House made its decision last year and requested that the Senior Salaries Review Body look into the matter. I am now following that up. I cannot see what there is to do with patronage in the question whether Select Committee Chairmen should be rewarded more fairly. As to how Chairmen are selected, the Committee of Selection is aware of the concerns of minority parties and is looking at them.

On 14 May last year, following a debate on the Modernisation Committee's report, the House resolved that

"the Review Body on Senior Salaries should be invited to consider what additional remuneration is appropriate for chairmen of select committees."—[Official Report, 14 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 723.]

The SSRB's report, which was published on 17 July this year, recommended a single level of additional payment for Chairmen of departmental and externally focused cross-departmental Committees amounting to £12,500 a year. I am grateful to the SSRB and its chairman, John Baker, for the work that it has done on this matter and for its usual careful consideration of the issues involved. The SSRB's recommendations form the basis of the motions that I bring before the House this afternoon.

There are two motions on the Order Paper. The first expresses the House's opinion on the matter; the second is an "effective motion" that is designed to give effect to the first "opinion motion" and is required in order that the Queen's recommendation can be signified to the Government expenditure that the motion will entail—in this case, the increased Exchequer contributions to Members' pensions. An explanatory memorandum has been made available in the Vote Office. I turn first to the amount that would be paid. The motion follows the SSRB in proposing that the pay of a Member who is a qualifying Chairman should be increased by £12,500 a year for the period during which they are Chairman. The motion provides for the increased salary to be uprated annually in the same way as Members' pay. The SSRB said that it has taken "a cautious initial approach" to Chairmen's pay and has announced its intention to revisit the issue of the pay of Committee Chairmen as part of its continuing fundamental reviews of parliamentary pay and allowances.

The intention is that the additional rate of Members' pay paid to Chairmen should be taken into account when calculating Members' pensions. The additional rate of pay would be treated for pension purposes in a similar way to Ministers' pay. If the House agrees to that principle today, I will bring forward regulations as soon as possible to amend the statutory instrument that contains the rules for the parliamentary contributory pension fund. The intention is that the regulations will have effect backdated to the beginning of next Session, so that Chairmen's pay would, in effect, be pensionable from the beginning. I understand that the chairman of the trustees is content with what is being proposed.

The House authorities have calculated that the cost of implementing the motion—based on payment of £12,500 to 25 Committees—will be in the region of £420,000 a year, including employer's pension and national insurance contributions, but not administration costs. If any qualifying Chairmen were not to take up the payment, the total cost would, of course, be reduced.

The motion follows the SSRB's recommendation in proposing that Chairmen's pay be limited to the Chairmen of the departmental Select Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 152 and seven externally focused cross-departmental Select Committees—the Environmental Audit Committee, the European Scrutiny Committee, the Public Accounts Committee, the Public Administration Committee, the Regulatory Reform Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

As the Leader of the House will know, as Chairman of the Procedure Committee I tabled an amendment that was unfortunately not selected. Bearing in mind that the Procedure Committee was not included among the number of Committees whose Chairmen were to receive remuneration under the Liaison Committee's report, will the Leader of the House reconsider the matter at an early date? Given that my own future time in the House is limited, I do not perhaps have a long-term vested interest, but I believe that the work of the Procedure Committee is very important to the House—and we do travel as part of our responsibilities.

I am very sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point of view. The Procedure Committee is indeed an important Committee that plays a crucial role; and the hon. Gentleman's role is particularly distinguished. I am sure that the matter will continue to be considered. The Modernisation Committee can, of course, revisit it; and he, as a member of that Committee, can make further representations. I am equally happy to receive such representations from others.

The original Modernisation Committee report and the report of the SSRB were explicit in their recommendation 1 hat the additional salary should reflect the extra work undertaken by those Committees that are actively involved in the scrutiny of Government.

Although we all appreciate the work of the SSRB, many of us, including me, gave evidence to the Committee that it was not a salary that Chairs particularly wanted, but extra help to back us up in fulfilling our responsibilities. When I became Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Skills two and half years ago, I used all my staff and parliamentary allowance, much of which was diverted to my work as a Chairman. What we really need is extra capacity for help in the office, not a salary.

My hon. Friend's point has been recognised, and extra resources are coming into Select Committees. However, that is not an alternative to rewarding Chairmen properly: it is a complement, or a parallel measure, to strengthen Select Committees. The point of the exercise is to reward those who, quite properly, place Ministers such as myself under scrutiny. We want to strengthen the democratic basis of the House of Commons and the role of scrutiny, and that is precisely what this measure achieves.

I understand that some Members are keen to recognise the contributions made by those in other positions in the House, as did the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton). Although there may be a strong argument for such financial recognition, the motions reflect the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee, the decision of the House last May, and the opinion of the SSRB.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the likely response of the public to this extension of payment to certain Members of the House? He will be aware that when the Scottish Parliament awarded an extra payment to its Members, a public outcry followed. Does he not fear that there will be a similar outcry in this case?

There is always a reaction in the media and elsewhere when such matters are discussed, but this merits fair and balanced consideration, especially given that the rate was decided by an independent review body that was not influenced by the Government or by me, as Leader of the Commons. The SSRB, reflecting the House's decision that this was a proper matter for award, recommended a level of remuneration. I think that most members of the public would recognise that Select Committee Chairmen increasingly do an onerous and important job in holding the Government to account, especially a Government with as large a parliamentary majority as ours.

In my written statement announcing publication of the SSRB's report, I reported that I had asked the Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges whether his Committee would look into the matter of Chairmen's outside interests. I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) and his Committee for their work. The motion endorses the Committee's recommendation that there should be no question of, nor any appearance of, any double payment for outside activity arising primarily as a result of the chairmanship. If the House agrees to that principle, the Committee has said that it will develop guidelines for Chairmen.

The motions clarify when Chairmen's pay should be paid—that is, from the day on which a Member is elected Chairman of a qualifying Committee or, for those already serving as Chairmen, from the beginning of next Session until the day on which he or she ceases to hold the post. Ministers and other officeholders would be excluded from payment, as would those who served as Chairmen for less than one day. In case unforeseen circumstances arise, it is proposed that the Speaker be given authority to interpret the provisions and to make rules for their implementation.

I am sure that Members on both sides of the House would support the view that the scrutiny Committees add to Parliament's ability to achieve accountability from Government. The Government is keen to promote and facilitate changes that enhance scrutiny and the public perception of Parliament. The motions before the House reflect recommendations of the Modernisation Committee and the SSRB that are designed to achieve these ends. However, the decision is, of course, one for the House, not for the Government. It is in that spirit that I table the motions for debate and decision by the House.

I want to start by broadly endorsing the remarks of the Leader of the House and the content of the motions tabled in his name.

The House will recall that we agreed this matter in principle, albeit narrowly, some time ago; we are therefore returning to it simply to give it effect. It is important to remember, however, that that narrowness should make us sensitive to the fact that many hon. Members, perhaps some here present, were and are unhappy about the approach that we are taking: we should therefore show due caution.

The fact that the matter was referred to an outside body for determination means that, as the Leader of the House said, it should not in any way be interpreted as this House lining its own pockets. Although we have approved the principle, for reasons that I thoroughly support, it is worth recalling that the amount that was recommended, and is reflected in the motions, was set by that most independent of bodies, the Senior Salaries Review Body.

I presume that the shadow Leader of the House, as a convinced free marketeer, accepts the principle of supply and demand in determining salaries. Has he noticed any shortage of supply of suitably qualified candidates to chair Select Committees? If so, does he believe that that should be taken into account?

Funnily enough, I was going to consider that point in a slightly different context. I shall comment later on its relevance to the Chairmen's Panel—a subject that is close to my heart and that I want to raise with the Leader of the House. In a sense, the hon. Gentleman is right. I suspect that if Members were paid nothing, there would be some eccentrics demanding to do the job. But that is not the modern way. We must accept that although some of us thoroughly enjoy the job, we are paid because we have to feed our families and pay our mortgages.

We are considering a different issue, which the Leader of the House mentioned briefly. It is important to set it in context and remind ourselves of where we come from. I have had the privilege of serving in the House for 20 years. I have been a Government Back Bencher and was privileged to be a Minister for some nine years. I have been an Opposition Back-Bench Member and I am currently in the shadow Cabinet. Who knows where I shall be in a week or so's time? All that gives me an interesting perspective. From the moment I arrived, I was conscious of an imbalance in the sense that although there is a career structure for those who want to be Ministers, there has never been such a structure in the House. For colleagues who may not want to become Ministers or may not have that privilege, it is important to acknowledge that there is a proper job to be done as a parliamentarian rather than a Minister. The motion and our votes in principle for the proposals a couple of years ago reflect a move towards that by acknowledging that it is proper to make some sort of payment in recognition not only of the additional responsibilities of being a Committee Chairman but of the alternative career structure that it could offer Members of Parliament. I endorse the motion on that basis.

One of the amendments that were not selected reflects questions about the SSRB's recommendation that only some Committee Chairmen should be paid. Like the Leader of the House, I am for the moment content to accept that we should proceed on that basis. However, I hope that we shall keep the matter in mind. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton); I suspect that if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will shortly make it again in his usual forceful way. He said that the list to which the Leader of the House referred is not sacrosanct and should not be regarded as the final word on this matter. Distinguishing between Select Committees and considering whether the distinction we make today is correct are contentious matters. We should feel free to revert to them after the House approves the motions.

I endorse the right hon. Gentleman's points. The motion should not be the final word on the matter. We should ascertain how the proposals bed down and how we proceed.

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for those comments. I hope that they will give some comfort to those who are uneasy about the precise form of words.

The same argument applies to the amount of the additional salary that is being recommended. Again, I amplify the comments of the Leader of the House. Paragraph 2.30 on page 8 of the SSRB's report states:

"Taking all these issues into account we have decided to take a cautious initial approach to the pay of the Chairmen of the relevant committees. In so doing we announce our intention to revisit the pay of Committee Chairmen as part of our continuing fundamental reviews from time to time of parliamentary pay and allowances, the next to occur in 2003–04. By then, we may be better placed to assess whether or not the new "core tasks" become firmly bedded into the departmental Committee structure, and are delivering the wider scrutiny and investigative objectives envisaged by the Modernisation and Liaison Committees, and, if so, the consequences for the work of the Chairmen."

That is a signal and a commitment to reconsider the matter so that we can continue to assess whether our actions constitute the right approach and whether the arrangements are having the desired effect.

The approach is rightly cautious at this stage but I am happy that the Leader of House has said that it will be kept under review.

Although the Leader of the House dealt lightly and perhaps too briefly with my intervention about the basis for composing Select Committees, does my right hon. Friend agree that the composition of the Committees and the basis for deciding who becomes a Chairman are inextricably bound up with the question of pay? If we do not deal adequately with the need to democratise the chairmanship of the Committees, the Chairmen will literally become members of the payroll vote.

I am with my hon. Friend on that matter. His eagle eye will have noted that amendments that sought to deal with that problem were tabled, but sadly not selected. The controversial decision that the House made two years ago about our method of nominating members of Select Committees and the way in which those Committees subsequently choose their Chairmen—or not—means that we must revert to the matter as a result of our actions today. If one argues for an alternative career structure as a parliamentary matter, it is difficult to square that with procedure hitherto, which provides that the usual channels, the Whips, have an iron grip not so much on membership—the Government have probably gone further than us on that—but on chairmanships. If the House approves payment for Chairmen, the issue becomes even more relevant than when we previously considered the matter. When the Deputy Leader of the House winds up the debate for the Government, I hope that he will give us some encouragement.

The right hon. Gentleman is presenting a good analysis of the position. Although I missed a couple of minutes of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I do not believe that anyone has yet mentioned Lord Sheldon, whose input into all the deliberations was so important. He is the architect of much of the proposals.

I am more than happy to pay tribute to Lord Sheldon, a distinguished and long-serving Member of the House of Commons. If anyone feels any guilt about the proposals or the need to blame anyone else, Lord Sheldon can fill that role. That is doubly beneficial and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) for his intervention.

I do not wish to detain hon. Members; I have made my views clear. Although the vote is genuinely free, as it should be on such a parliamentary matter, I hope that my hon. Friends can support my view. I make one last plea to the Leader of the House about a subject that is close to my heart and relevant to the proposals. I believed from the start that those who genuinely deserved increased pay were the members of the Chairmen's Panel. That body carries out extraordinarily important work on behalf of the House in an unglamorous, usually unrecognised way. Without it, the House could not function. If I may say so without upsetting anyone present, Select Committee Chairmen enjoy much more; glamour and travel and are probably able to get more direct satisfaction from their work. They appear in the media and so on. Perhaps that is the wrong way round. Now that we have established the principle of additional pay and a parliamentary career structure, and if we accept the motions today to give effect to that, I hope that the Leader of the House and the Modernisation Committee will consider the Chairmen's Panel specifically, and perhaps other similar matters that they deem appropriate. I say that because I believe that it is important that the Chairmen's Panel attracts Members of the highest calibre and ability, and that we recognise and reward that appropriately. I hope, therefore, that if we can deal with this business satisfactorily today, get the details right and get on with it in a flexible way that is not set in concrete, the Modernisation Committee will allow us to move on and to deal with the matter of the Chairmen's Panel as a matter of urgency. I hope that the House will feel able to agree to the motions before it today, and I wish the Select Committee Chairmen well as a result.

I am very conscious that my comments will probably not win me any friends. Nevertheless, I intend to try to persuade the House that the proposal before us is a very foolish one. I have to declare an interest. in that I do not think that Ministers should be part of the legislature. I would like them out of it. The relevance of that is that they would then be paid a ministerial salary, but not a parliamentary salary as well. A driving force behind my argument is to identify some parallels with junior Ministers.

I believe that people in the legislature should all be paid the same rate because we are doing the same job. We may have different functions within the legislature, but the same intensity, responsibility and integrity is required of each and every one of us. The fact that some people fulfil different functions does not mean that they work harder or have greater decision-making responsibilities. I accept that Ministers take executive action, but those of us who are not Ministers have to judge every day how far we can push, persuade and probe them, bearing in mind all the constraints of party politics—let us be frank about that.

Some Members are the patron saint of hopeless cases. What about the people who take up the really unpopular causes? I have not done that, but there are some who have. Such people show enormous courage, and for that reason they attract every pressure group and lost cause. The burden on them is enormous, but that is not reflected in their salary. It is dangerous to create a disparity between some Members of Parliament and others that is reflected in their salaries. As I have said, the situation is already distorted by Ministers. The gap between ministerial salaries and MPs' salaries is too big. Obviously, I would make an exception for the top echelon, for the people who preside in the Chair, and so on. By and large, however, the disparity is too great, and now we are going to compound it by having two tiers of Back-Bench Members. That is foolhardy in the extreme.

It would be perverse if we were to pass this measure today and exclude the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. That would be stark staring bonkers, frankly, and I hope that, if that happens, it will be remedied pretty damned quickly. But it is the principle of the matter to which I am opposed today, and I urge the House to reflect on that, even at this stage.

I listened carefully to what the shadow Leader of the House said. He made a good point in acknowledging that the members of the Chairmen's Panel do unglamorous work, which is not reflected in their salaries. That is absolutely correct. There will also be new cases; this problem will increase. There is a powerful case, for example, for the deputy Leader of the Opposition to be paid more. There could be a case to be advanced for some reflection of the Liberal party's role. People might disagree with the idea, hut we can advance the case for the leaders of political parties being paid more.

And the shadow Leader of the House.

And the shadow Leader of the House in particular. He is in constant attendance in the House. Are we really suggesting that he pedals less fast on the treadmill than the Leader of the House? I just do not accept that. We all have different roles, and I hope that we are all working ourselves to the very limit. If some of us are not, people should know about it.

The shadow Leader of the House mentioned the unglamorous nature of the work done by the members of the Chairmen's Panel. They do that work very well. There are other people who do unglamorous work here and who are paid more for it. They are the junior Government Whips. I have nothing against them, but they are paid large sums of extra money, as compared with ordinary MPs, and they only have a walk-on part. They do not have much to say. The only thing they do is to stand up at the end of the day and say, "I beg to move that this House do now adjourn." What has always amazed me is that they cannot learn their line. They read it every night. I invite hon. Members to look, next time. Presumably this does riot apply to my distinguished colleague on the Front Bench this afternoon, but nine times out of 10 they cannot even rehearse their line. They have to stand up and read it from a folder, and they get £12,000 a year more for that.

I know how important the junior Whips are to the mechanisms and workings of Parliament. Of course I accept that. I am referring to the unglamorous nature of their work, because they have no speaking role in the House except to say, "I beg to move that this House do now adjourn."

If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that this money should be spread more widely, why should it not be given to shadow Ministers? After all, they have to do an enormous amount of work in shadowing a particular portfolio, and they have very little support. If we are going to give extra money to those who have a high profile, would it not be quite right also to give it to those with a rather lower profile but who have to work extremely hard?

The hon. Gentleman makes me feel wholly inadequate because he has made that point much better than I was trying to do. It is absurd to extend this measure to the Chairmen of Select Committees, because there will be a compelling case to compound the error of creating two tiers. There is a case for shadow spokespersons to have facilities, and the list could be endless. In a short space of time, we could have two tiers of Members of Parliament.

rose—

I am happy to give way to such a distinguished Member.

That is very kind of the hon. Gentleman. The Chairmen's Panel consists of men and women who do a lot of unsung work that is vital to the way in which the House operates. In doing so, they forgo the opportunity of speaking in debates in the House, which would give them coverage not only in the national media but in their local media. Their role is very important and deserves to be valued in due course.

That is a valid point. The House might like to reflect on whether it should adopt a practice from the House of Lords, where the equivalent of the Chairmen's Panel is much more extensive. Similarly, in the United States Congress, there are people who preside in the Chair when the Speaker is absent. That function should be spread around, and all of us should have the honour and the obligation to fulfil that function over the course of a Parliament at an equal rate. That would be much more sensible and equitable. It would mean that people were not preoccupied with fulfilling the important function of chairing Committees and being denied the opportunity to participate in debates in the House. I want parity of treatment in the House.

Would membership of the Chairmen's Panel also be open to former Government junior Whips who have trouble reading out, "I beg to move that this House do now adjourn"?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question, but I am in enough trouble as it is, and I have an appointment later with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) about some times at which I want to be absent from the House.

I was very sympathetic to the point that there is a need for increased back-up for the Select Committees and their Chairmen. I shall give an illustration, although I am not trying to denigrate my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench in any way. The junior Whips have the use of a Government car, but there may not be an overwhelmingly compelling case for them to do so. However, what they have, they hold—that is a good trade union principle—and I do not want to take it away from them. But if the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for example, had to go to the Chinese embassy or the Russian embassy one lunchtime, or if the Chairman of the Health Committee had to go over to the Department of Health at Elephant and Castle, they would have to go by public transport. There is nothing wrong with that, but if the reason for having a car is to expedite and maximise the scarce time and resources of people with a great deal of responsibility, there is a case for allowing the Chairmen of Select Committees to have them as well. The case for a car is much more compelling than the case for increasing their salaries. I am sympathetic to their need for facilities, including cars, but not to the proposal to increase their salaries.

As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), this issue is inextricably bound up with the question of how Select Committee members are chosen. I hope that those who do not share my view that there should be more parity in salary terms, including Ministers, will join me in opposing the motion until we have a better system for the selection of Committee members and the selection—or anointing—of Chairpersons. Regardless of whether Labour, Conservatives or Liberal Democrats are in government, the Government of the day in particular—although this will also be true of Opposition Whips—will have a compelling wish, and the capacity, to mould Select Committees to the best likeness of the Government.

The Leader of the House explained the function of Select Committees, and said that he welcomed scrutiny. I accept that that is his view, and also that it is the desirable view; but I think we are being proud of ourselves prematurely if we imagine we have developed our Select Committee systems to the necessary extent. We have not yet done that, and I do not believe that this proposal will advance the position. In a sense, we have not earned what is being proposed.

I assume that after Christmas we shall have an opportunity to discuss the Hutton inquiry. I do not want to trespass on that territory at this stage—I am putting myself in purdah—but in that context as in others the whole issue of scrutiny is at stake. There is, for instance, a big question mark over whether the Osmotherley rules can be reinforced to prevent people from appearing before Committees. There is also a question mark over whether the green light can be given for public servants, Ministers and people in the private sector to appear before Committees and obfuscate. I hope that at some stage the Standards and Privileges, Liaison and Procedure Committees will consider how we can ensure that such people tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That is relevant to what we are discussing because, as I have said, I think it premature for us to imagine that we have reached a satisfactory stage in terms of scrutiny. Independence must be earned, and that returns us to the question of how people are selected.

At the time of the Iraq war, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) resigned ministerial office. I cannot find words adequate to acknowledge how courageous and principled his resignation was. Nevertheless, I was equally amazed by what happened text. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee became a Minister—I believe, incidentally, that he voted against the war—and there was then a vacancy for the post of Home Affairs Committee Chairman. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen, having been a Home Office Minister, suddenly became Chairman of the Committee.

No matter how distinguished and principled that gentleman was, or is—indeed, that is beyond doubt—I consider it wrong for someone to chair a Select Committee that will scrutinise the Department in which until recently he was a Minister. I think that that is stark staring bonkers.

That followed a recommendation from the parliamentary Labour party to the Labour members of the Home Affairs Committee. The key question is this, however: if the parties are to be instrumental in placing people on Select Committees, should their procedures be published? It is, after all, openness and transparency that are so important.

My hon. Friend and I have discussed the issue informally. He attaches great importance to the fact that Labour's parliamentary committee—the equivalent of the 1922 committee—decided that the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen should chair the Home Affairs Committee. I think he sees it as something of an advance. I want to be generous this afternoon, but it is at best a marginal advance.

We are talking about party patronage. What if it became the norm in our party and thereby, ipso facto, became part of the British constitution? Along with others, I joined Conservative Members to install the late Sir Robert Adley as Chairman of the Transport Committee in place of the person nominated by agreement between the Conservative Whips in 1992. I would have been denied that opportunity had the parliamentary committee said "No: this is the person for whom you, Mackinlay, must vote". In fact it said that anyway, but I felt confident enough, as I was following the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She and I, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Keith Hill), baulked at being told who to choose. We honoured the choice of a Conservative Chairman, but it was Robert Adley whom we chose—and we could not have done so under the system proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).

Before agreeing to these motions, the House should take account of an arrangement that has just been implemented by our cousins in the Ottawa Parliament. They have instituted their first ever secret ballot—we know how interesting those are, do we not?—for committee members to choose their chairpersons. If we did the same here, there might be a case for these proposals.

Just to dot the i's and cross the t's, may I ask whether the, hon. Gentleman favours the continuation of a rough apportionment of Chairs according to party before Committee members are allowed to select? Otherwise, given an imbalance in the House of the kind that currently exists, there would be a risk that every Chairman would be a member of the Labour party.

That is a racing certainty. Yes, I think there should be an apportionment. I also think—as, I believe, did Gladstone, whose fingerprints were on the establishment of the Public Accounts Committee—that in some instances there should be a presumption that the Chairperson is not a member of the governing party. That would mean a sacrifice, but it would he in the interests of democracy. I hope that the Leader of the House will leave office—having, I hope, held it for longer than his immediate predecessors—knowing that he has revolutionised some of our procedures. I am thinking both of changes in our methods of selection and of the possibility of a presumption—I use the word advisedly—that some Committees should be chaired by a member of a party other than the governing party.

I want to frame my final point in the form of a question, phrased somewhat facetiously. The Foreign Secretary and I have argued repeatedly about the Intelligence and Security Committee. He claims that the fact that it is not a Committee of the House of Commons constitutes a distinction rather than a difference. I say that it has absolutely nothing to do with the House of Commons. It is not paid for by the House of Commons, and it is not clerked by the House of Commons; it is clerked by the Cabinet Office. The chairman and secretary are anointed by the Prime Minister.

What do the Government intend in regard to the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee? She cannot be paid with House of Commons money, because the ISC is not a parliamentary Committee. If she were paid with Government money through some Executive action, it would mean that she held an office of profit under the Crown, and she would therefore be disqualified from holding office in the House of Commons. If the concept that the ISC is somehow equal to or comparable with a parliamentary Committee—the concept of a distinction without a difference—is to survive, primary legislation will be required. I am, in a sense, saying to the Leader of the House, "Discuss." I should like to hear his views.

All that should take place against the backdrop of the Foreign Affairs Committee's recommendation that the ISC should be made a Committee of the House of Commons, appointed by the Howe of Commons, inadequate though its appointment procedures are. As I have said, I should like them to be improved.

This is another increment my argument to the House that the motion is premature and has not been adequately thought out. There is the question of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and the heart of the matter is how we select the members and appoint the Chairmen of our Select Committees. We have not yet earned the reputation for providing adequate scrutiny in this place; we are only scratching the surface. We know of the obstructions that have been put in our way; every Committee could give evidence on how it has been obstructed and misled. Until such time as we grapple with these big issues, it is wholly wrong to advance money for the so-called Chairmen of these Committees.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), and not for the first time; I hope that that does not embarrass him. Indeed, I represented some of the views that he has expressed when the Modernisation Committee discussed this matter, a point to which I shall return. However, I should draw to his attention the fact that there are precedents for Members receiving additional salary, over and above their parliamentary salary. I am talking not just about the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, who, as we all accept, hold very onerous positions. The Leader of the Opposition receives a considerable salary—[Interruption.] Well, there is a problem here to which attention needs to be drawn. Let us consider a hypothetical situation in which, numerically, the two Opposition parties are within one seat of each other after the next general election. If one Member transfers from the Conservative Benches to the Liberal Democrat ones, he comes with £500,000. That is a considerable incentive, perhaps, although I am not making an offer. That could be a very interesting transfer fee, and some percentage might be considered.

I should draw the attention of the hon. Member for Thurrock to appendix F of the Senior Salaries Review Body report, on page 18. Considerable sums are involved, and I should also point out that a car and driver are made available to the Leader of the Opposition at public expense. The point that the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee made about the resources available to the Chairmen of Select Committees is very valid, and although we have made some modest improvements in that regard, that remains the core issue, rather than the question of salary incentives. I shall return to that point a little later.

This afternoon's discussion is extremely important. As the Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, we are talking about not servants of the Executive or those who are simply aspirant Ministers, but servants of Parliament: those who believe that serving the nation and their constituents in an effective Parliament that holds the Executive to account is not just an honourable profession, but an extremely important one. In that respect, I very much share the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.

Naturally, those colleagues on both sides of the House who endorsed my amendments appreciate and respect the decision not to select them. We understand the dynamics of this place, but I would be letting them down if I did not express some disappointment at that decision. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House can give us explicit assurances in respect of concerns already expressed—not least by the hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Thurrock—about the way in which the package has unravelled, a point to which I shall also return.

The clear mood of the House this afternoon is that this is not a full stop. I hope that the Government will make it clear that the wider concerns already expressed today—they were expressed extensively during the debate of 14 May last year and are reflected in the reports—will be considered very carefully in an appropriate forum.

In the meantime, I yield to absolutely nobody—whether inside or outside this House—in my admiration and support for the increasingly effective scrutiny by Select Committees. It is clear that the question of the leadership of those Committees is extremely important. The hon. Member for Thurrock, in his usual modest way, expressed some reservations about the extent to which the Hutton inquiry has demonstrated that our own processes are not fully adequate to the task that we set for our colleagues who do that job. I accept that, but at least we are moving in the right direction. What we must make clear this afternoon is whether the effort to improve the way in which Select Committees operate in future is being helped or hindered. I would suggest that, to some extent, the jury is still out.

I am not selective in my admiration for Select Committees, so I shall not be selective in my admiration for the Modernisation Committee, of which I am delighted to have been a member since its inception. I want to draw the attention of the House, and of the Leader of the House in particular, to the package of recommendations put to the House in February 2002. It was not just a one-off proposal to pay the Chairmen of Select Committees; it was an entire package. We have referred to the resources issue, which is extremely important. On that occasion, we made an important point about limitation on term. It was clear that, if we were to pay Members to be Chairmen of Select Committees, it would unreasonable to specify an unlimited period, given that there are many volunteers. So we recommended a period of two Parliaments, with special provisions applying if a speedy change should occur between general elections. Indeed, when we last debated this issue, we effectively wrote in a limitation on term, so to some extent that concern has been met.

Other concerns were expressed, however. Although it is clearly right to try to devise an alternative career path, it has to be done in the context of specific safeguards. Limitation on term is one safeguard, but it is not the most important. It is even more vital that the House regain overall responsibility for and the right to supervise the appointment of members of Select Committees. Here, I very much endorse the concerns expressed by the hon. Members for Buckingham and for Thurrock—in other words, on both sides of the House—about unfinished business. I do not want to take away from the parliamentary parties the right to make nominations, but there must be a safeguard. Some opportunity must exist for appeal—for this House to take responsibility for who is to serve it on Select Committees; otherwise, there will always be a question mark about increased patronage on the part of those who, although they may not want to muzzle Select Committees, may want to finesse the way in which they are led.

I have the greatest respect for the current team of Select Committee Chairmen, regardless of party. I hope that I am not embarrassing the one or two who are present. Many of the Chairmen have past ministerial experience, and I suspect that that helps. I am not sure that the immediate jump from one part of the political spectrum into that role is quite as admirable as some would suppose. I yield to no one in my respect for the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), but the hon. Member for Thurrock makes a good point: does leaving a Department and then becoming Chairman of the relevant Select Committee provide an opportunity to find the skeletons that much quicker? That is possible. On the other hand, does the new Chairman arrive with a mindset that makes scrutiny less effective?

Safeguards are extremely important. We should consider the question of it being thought, whether inside or outside this House, that the Whips Offices have effectively given themselves extra leverage over existing Select Committee Chairmen, whereby they say, "Take it easy, boy, because we've got an important and difficult job to do. By the way, you do remember that your salary is to some extent dependent on the support of your Whips Office." That is an extremely important issue. Even if that were not the reality, but the perception was that in some way or other, the effectiveness of a Select Committee and its leadership was in any way being hampered by the new financial pressures that the Whips Office could exert, that would be very damaging indeed.

Given that, under our procedures, a period of time must elapse between the departure of a Minister and his assumption of commercial responsibilities relating to the Department of which he was previously part, does the hon. Gentleman think, further to the intervention of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), that the same principle should apply to departing Ministers who take over the chairmanship of Select Committees?

That is a very positive suggestion, to which I was about to come. The comparison that the hon. Gentleman makes with a ministerial exit is very valid; indeed, I had not thought of that way of approaching the issue. It would be a good solution. I very much hope that the Government will respond to that specific point.

To reinforce the hon. Gentleman's case, I recall that when the Conservatives came to office, Labour took control of the Social Services Select Committee and wished to appoint the immediately prior Secretary of State for Social Services—David Ennals, who became Lord Ennals—as the Chairman of that Select Committee. I have to say that some colleagues, including Labour Members, and I prevented that from occurring for the very reason that has been suggested. We had the chairmanship put in the safe hands of the then hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).

Many of us will recall that example, even if we were not Members of Parliament at the time. It demonstrates the value of having a degree of independence, which leads to effective and independent scrutiny.

I want to refer to a couple of other issues that were the subject of the amendments. I find it odd that there is such confusion about the dividing line between the Committees that should receive the additional remuneration for their Chairs and those that should not. The Modernisation Committee had a different dividing line, as did the Liaison Committee in its original report—I see the Chairman of that Committee in his place—from the one that is specified now.

I am unclear about how the dividing line has been drawn. Have the Government leaned on the SSRB, or has it come completely independently to the view that,

for example, the procedure of the House is less important than the work of the Environmental Audit Committee? Or is that Committee being treated somehow as a domestic Select Committee rather than a scrutiny Select Committee? I do not understand that. The reference in paragraph 2.02 of the SSRB report does not deal with that particular problem, but leaves it open as to where the dividing line should be drawn. I would like to be assured that the concerns expressed to the House this afternoon—they reflect issues raised in our debate of 14 May and again in the SSRB report—have been properly addressed.

I understand the point of view of the nationalists. Although, thank goodness, I no longer have any role in those concerns, it is a matter for direct negotiation with the Government and both sides were happy to take the issue on. However, it is a private fight, in which I do not want to indulge—

As the hon. Gentleman has indulged himself a little, I will allow him to indulge himself some more. Surely, if a change is being proposed in respect of the payment of Select Committee Chairman, it is only reasonable that any outstanding issues concerning the method of selection are addressed before further changes are made. Is that not a relevant matter?

I am not saying that it is irrelevant, but that it is a dialogue to which I do not intend to contribute. I take the point that several outstanding issues have not yet been addressed.

I shall return to the motion. Given the comments of the Leader of the House, an outside observer might consider that there was consensus on all the issues, but that is simply untrue. It is clear even in the SSRB report that there was far from consensus on the critical issue. Paragraph 41 of the original report of the Modernisation Committee referred to the principle of payment of Select Committee Chairs, and I hope that the House will forgive me if I read a few lines because it is highly relevant. It states:

"This is not a matter on which there is any consensus in the House. The Chairman of the Liaison Committee in his evidence to us was frank that the chairmen themselves of the select committees hold opposing views. This difference of opinion was reflected in our own Committee. We are unanimous in agreeing that the post of chairman of departmental select committees attracts a heavy workload and a substantial responsibility. There are some, however, who attach importance to the principle that all backbench Members should receive the same salary and believe that there would be dangers in relating pay to workload which can vary for many reasons among Members."

That is far from a ringing endorsement of the principle that has been put before the House this afternoon. There are a great many outstanding issues, such as those highlighted in the Select Committee report from which I have just quoted—we are paying tribute to the work of Select Committees this afternoon. I take those issues from the report as our starting point this afternoon.

The question of incentives has already been mentioned. I believe that the incentive to attract talent to this job has nothing to do with salary. I am sure that all hon. Members who have served in that capacity would agree. What about salary or pension eligibility?

Are they uppermost in the minds of former Ministers and other hon. Members when they reflect on whether to take on the additional responsibility? That is surely nonsense. I do not believe that that is what discourages hon. Members from contemplating that alternative career path to the ministerial route.

We then come to the issue of volunteers. When I was my party's Chief Whip and had some minor considerations to reflect on—sadly, we do not get very many opportunities—I can tell hon. Members that there was no lack of very able volunteers. I have never heard that other political parties ever had difficulty in getting people to volunteer to be Chairs of Select Committees. The incentive argument is, frankly, absurd.

Without wanting to tread on overly delicate territory, would the hon. Gentleman concede that his argument might not apply in respect of the Chairmen's Panel? The work and the perception of the work of a Chairman of a Select Committee in comparison with that of a member of the Chairmen's Panel is very different. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the incentive argument might apply to the one, if not to the other?

I agree precisely with the right hon. Gentleman—indeed, that was my next point. It looks as though we collude on these occasions, but far from it. I would not want to put the right hon. Gentleman in a difficult position with the new leader of his party. Yes, of course what he says is true: the service that hon. Members give to the House in chairing Standing Committees is unparalleled. Taking on that responsibility certainly brings hon. Members no benefit as regards constituency or media coverage. However, that is not the only responsibility that Members accept.

I can spare the right hon. Gentleman's blushes by acknowledging that some colleagues spend a lot of time serving on the House of Commons Commission, which can be an onerous responsibility. Millions of pounds of taxpayers' money is spent on the administration of the House, and the Commission supervises that to ensure that the job is done effectively. I am not aware of any significant personal benefits from carrying out that function. Occasionally, the Speaker might call someone on the Commission to speak, but I suspect that it would be on the grounds of their contribution to the debate.

I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman in pointing out the extra work and additional contribution made by hon. Members in those positions, but the $64,000 question is where one stops and draws the line. That is what has to be answered this afternoon. What the hon. Gentleman says makes a compelling case to pay those Members more in a future Parliament and we will end up with two—tier MPs.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, which is why I tried to widen the debate, as he did, a few moments ago. If we do not discuss the context of the proposals, we are not doing our duty. I am sorry to see that the Leader of the House has left us temporarily and I hope that the Deputy Leader will be able to call him hack. Without proper assurances, many of those who supported the amendments that I tabled will feel that they have to vote against the motion and divide the House. If we had been allowed to vote on those amendments, that embarrassment could have been avoided. The natural inclination of many of us would be make our points on the amendments and then let the motion proceed. I have no doubt that others will share the view of the hon. Member for Thurrock—now that we have been denied that opportunity, if the House is divided he will gain support from other hon. Members. I want to return to the issue of incentives. The remit that the House gave—or was it the Government; I am not sure exactly how it was devised—to the SSRB precluded a discussion about the wider issue of incentives and who else should be considered. In that respect, the SSRB has answered the question that it was given, but it was the wrong question. That puts us in an invidious position.

I endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), which is accepted on both sides of the House: adequate resources to ensure a degree of independence from reliance on Government information and data is critical to making Chairs of Select Committee as effective as possible.

The hon. Gentleman is displaying his case in an analytical way that is very helpful. I remind him that the SSRB was fairly specific in respect of the list of Committees whose Chairmen would receive remuneration, but that its recommendation clearly states that the final decision on which Committees to include should be determined by the House itself. However, the House is being denied that opportunity this afternoon. I ask the rhetorical question: why?