I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the Green Belt; and for connected purposes.

It was in 1955 that the then Government first encouraged local authorities to establish green belts around our main cities. Over the past 50 years, green belts have become the best known and the most popular of this country's planning policies, yet today they are under greater pressure for development than ever before.

Every year, 2,400 acres of green belt are developed on. In my constituency, 1,500 acres are under threat from one development. My Bill would reform our green belts, re-establish their permanence and thereby encourage much needed urban renewal. I am delighted to say that my Bill has secured support from hon. Members of all the main political parties in this House. My aim is simple: to ensure that green belt policy continues to shape the environment and our communities for the next 50 years.

Despite what some people may assume, green belt land makes up just 13 per cent. of England. The largest single example with which hon. Members will be familiar is the metropolitan green belt, which has prevented London from sprawling right across the south-east. It has protected thousands of acres of countryside and preserved the rural habitat for many thousands of indigenous wildlife species. In many ways, however, the green belt is more important for the way that it shapes our towns and cities by providing natural and permanent limits to them. That limit has stimulated a myriad urban renewal schemes, by encouraging the reuse and regeneration of neglected city land. By creating that natural boundary to our cities, we have been able to prevent the ugly, urban sprawl that sadly characterises some foreign cities—a sprawl that sucks the life out of city centres and generates needless commuter journeys every working day.

For example, without a green belt, Birmingham would have spread out across the Meriden gap to merge with Coventry and elsewhere with Kidderminster, Lichfield and Tamworth. The green belt in the midlands has encouraged the reuse of brownfield land and helped those communities to keep their individual character. I maintain that green belts put the heart back into our cities, by stimulating their renewal.

Unfortunately, our green belts are today shrinking in the face of enormous pressure for development. The latest figures show that since 1997, 284 acres have been developed in the south-west; more than 1,000 acres have been built on in the south-east; and, every year, an area of more than 15 square miles is developed on green belt land. That is the equivalent of the city of Lincoln.

What has gone wrong? After all, there has always been development pressure from developers and investors, but they are now targeting green belt sites far more. What has changed? The answer lies in a subtle but significant change in policy. Two years ago, the Government published a new set of planning guidance. Instead of reaffirming the permanence of land already designated, they focused on the total acreage. Thus the Deputy Prime Minster has said that he would

"maintain or increase green-belt land in every region in England."—[Official Report, 5 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 275.]

However, that differs from the original policy. In a county such as Hertfordshire, it means that land can be released for development if land elsewhere in the region—near Peterborough, for example—is rebadged as green belt. As hon. Members will realise, that entirely undermines the idea of a permanent green belt that shapes a city. Indeed, what it leaves us with is more like an elastic band, something that is continually stretched as more and more development is forced in. The irony is that the Government's plans for urban renewal are undermined, because developers and investors know only too well that all they need to do is to wait for the greenfield sites to be developed and ignore the awkward neglected city sites.

It is time to reverse that policy change and get rid of the elastic band. I wish to re-establish, in law, the permanent character of green belt land and, with it, the benefits of urban renewal and protection of the countryside. My Bill would seek to reverse the changes of 2003, to make the policy site-specific again, and to ensure that the boundaries of green belt land are clear and permanent. More land could then be designated, but that would not mean that other land could be released for development as a quid pro quo. The result would be to strengthen significantly the protection of our countryside and to help to shape our towns and cities. In a way, it would encourage the often ingenious minds of developers and investors to think how they could reuse a neglected site or develop land that has been overlooked. It would also end much of the current green field speculation in which people are being conned by the unscrupulous, who market plots of green belt land for tens of thousands of pounds on the internet.

Fifty years on from their conception, green belts are still the most effective and popular means we have of protecting our countryside and renewing and revitalising our towns. Green belts have stopped urban sprawl; kept neighbouring towns independent; and have given us all close to hand the open countryside that is so vital to our health and wellbeing.

We need to reform our green belt policy, to restore permanent boundaries and character, and I am delighted to be supported by Members not just from my own party but on both sides of the House, not least because they hope and believe, as I do, that by reforming our green belts we can ensure that they continue to shape our communities and the environment for another generation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mark Prisk, Colin Challen, Dr. John Pugh, Andrew Selous, Mr. Robert Syms, Mr. Andrew Lansley, Mr. Mark Lancaster, Anne Main, Philip Davies, Mr. James Gray, Mr. Stephen O'Brien and Mr. Edward Vaizey.

Green Belt Reform

Mr. Prisk accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about the Green Belt; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 June, and to be printed [Bill 44].

Before I call the Leader of the House, it may be helpful if I say something about the arrangement of today's business. If the Leader of the House's business motion—item 3 on the Order Paper—is agreed to, we will begin a single debate covering motions 4 to 40. It will be in order in that debate to discuss the general question, how the House selects the membership of its Committees, as well as the particular proposals in the motions. At the end of four and a half hours the Chair will put the question on each of the motions in turn.

A notice of my selection of amendments is available in the No Lobby and the Vote Office in the normal way. When we reach a motion to which an amendment has been selected, the occupant of the Chair will invite the Member concerned to move the amendment formally, and the House will decide first on the amendment and then on the motion, amended or not as may be the case.

Before I move the motion, I mention for the benefit of right hon. and hon. Members that I have arranged for a book of condolence to be placed in the Library and if Members want to sign it, as I hope they will, it is now available.

I beg to move,

That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put—

(a) the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr Geoffrey Hoon, Mr Bob Ainsworth and Rosemary McKenna, other than those listed in paragraph (b) of this Order, not later than four and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order, and

(b) the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr Geoffrey Hoon and Mr Bob Ainsworth relating to standards and Privileges, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Committee on Standards and Privileges and Standards and Privileges (Nomination) not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first Motion; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for helpfully summarising my entire speech on the issue so, to save time, I do not intend to repeat it. It is important that we are able to debate the items set out in motions 4 to 40, followed by a separate debate on Standards and Privileges covering motions 41 to 44.

It is in the interests of the House that we agree the motion swiftly and get on to those important debates. I commend the motion to the House.

I thank the Leader of the House for establishing a book of condolence, which is entirely appropriate.

I do not have much to add to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, except that I am glad that the debate is not being artificially guillotined, as often happens, and that we can have a full debate about a wide range of directly linked issues. Let us get on with the main debate.

Question put and agreed to.

I beg to move,

That Standing Orders Nos. 139 (Select Committee on Broadcasting) and 142 (Domestic Committees) be repealed and the following be a Standing Order of the House:

"Administration Committee

(1) There shall be a select committee, to be called the Administration Committee, to consider the services provided for and by the House and to make recommendations thereon to the House of Commons Commission or to the Speaker. Any such recommendation whose implementation would incur additional expenditure charged to the Estimate for House of Commons: Administration shall also be considered by the Finance and Services Committee.

(2) The committee shall make rules and give directions to Officers of the House in respect only of such administrative matters as may from time to time be determined by the Speaker or by the House of Commons Commission.

(3) The committee shall consist of not more than 16 Members, of whom five shall be a quorum.

(4) The committee shall have power—

(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time;

(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference; and

(c) to communicate its evidence to the House of Commons Commission.

(5) The committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters referred to the committee and to delegate to such sub-committees any of the powers delegated to the committee under paragraph (2) above.

(6) Any such sub-committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to adjourn from place to place, to report from time to time the minutes of their proceedings, and shall have a quorum of three.

(7) The committee and any sub-committee appointed by it shall have the assistance of the Officers of the House appropriate to the matters under consideration.

(8) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the Committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.

With this it will be convenient to consider motions 5 to 40.

We have before us in this afternoon's first debate 37 motions that relate to the reappointment of the Select Committees and related matters and to the payment of the Chairmen of Standing and Select Committees. In respect of several motions, explanatory memorandums have been made available in the Vote Office. I hope that they have been of assistance to hon. Members.

I shall start with the first proposal on the creation of an Administration Committee. The motion provides for the Domestic Committees—the Accommodation and Works, Administration, Catering, Information and Broadcasting Committees—to be replaced by a new, single Administration Committee. I believe that to be a sensible modernising measure. There is a widespread view that the existing structure of the Domestic Committees has become outdated. Convergence in technology makes it no longer appropriate to have separate Broadcasting and Information Committees, for example. There have been occasions when an issue that cuts across more than one Committee has been delayed because the decisions taken by one Committee have had to wait until another Committee has met. A single Committee should allow a more efficient approach, thus ensuring better Member oversight of the services provided throughout the House.

Before the Leader of the House gets too far into the detail of all these motions, will he address an item of principle? It is the role of the House to create departmental Select Committees, whose role is to hold the Government to account. Does he not feel that it is bordering on the politically corrupt for the Government to have such an important influence on selecting the members of those departmental Select Committees? Will he therefore take the chance, after today's debate, to look again at involving Members on both sides of the House in considering whether we could have a better system, perhaps one that involves the election of the members of departmental Select Committees by their colleagues in the House, rather than one that persists in allowing the very organisation that is meant to be scrutinised to have the right to put Members on to the departmental Select Committees of the House?

I disagree with my hon. Friend, not least because the great strength of our Select Committee system is that it reflects the great strength of our political party system both in the House and in the country. It is a matter for the political parties represented in the House to determine the appropriate allocation of Members to the Select Committees. I do not know whether he was present at the most recent meeting of the parliamentary Labour party, where it was made clear that an inordinate amount of time had been spent on transparently and fairly selecting the Labour party's representation. I obviously cannot speak for other political parties in the House, but his own political party went to a great deal of trouble to ensure that the nominations were in accordance with the principles of the Labour party. In those circumstances, I do not believe that he can complain that proper democratic procedures have not been adopted. Those are the proper democratic procedures of his and my political party.

May I perhaps come partly to the aid of the Leader of the House? He will be aware that the Modernisation Committee, which I have no doubt he will be chairing shortly, has considered this matter. Although its recommendations were very narrowly defeated in the House, I am confident that the matter will come before the Modernisation Committee again, and I hope that he is happy that it should do so, so that the House can consider the important matter raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).

I am always grateful for all the help that I can get, particularly from such a distinguished source, but it is important that the will of the political parties is reflected in the way in which Select Committees are appointed. I believe that that is carried out with very commendable concern for democracy and the principles of democracy that inform the House.

My friend will know that the parliamentary committee of the parliamentary Labour party decided that people who leave the Government—ex-Ministers—should not seamlessly transfer to take up the chairmanship of Select Committees. Does my friend agree with that?

I have made it quite clear that, as Leader of the House, I am not responsible for the internal workings of the political parties represented in the House. I happen to have information available to me because my membership of the Labour party means that, unlike Opposition Members, I am able to attend such distinguished gatherings. However, the principle is a matter for the Labour party. It is not a matter for the House, and thus not a matter for the Leader of the House.

While the Leader of the House is indulging in tidying up some of these matters, will he explain exactly why a motion relating to the Science and Technology Committee is not on the Order Paper today so that that Committee can be debated along with the other Committees.

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to get to that part of my observations, all will become clear—I hope.

Although I do not want to pry too much into the activities of the PLP, we have just been told that it has come to the decision that somehow ex-Ministers cannot automatically chair Select Committees. Does the Leader of the House think that a similar rule should apply so that if Select Committee Chairmen were invited to join the Government, they should refuse?

The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. It is important, however, that I do not go beyond my responsibilities to the House as Leader of the House. It is also important that I make a little progress.

The serious point that I was trying to put to my right hon. Friend was that if the House agrees to some of these motions today, we will have four years to consider the matter before it comes round for decision again. Will he consider whether it will be possible to have a discussion, under either his own auspices or those of the Modernisation Committee, to determine whether we can do this better next time?

I am sure that the Modernisation Committee, once established, will want to consider a range of issues, and that might well prove to be one of them. I know that my hon. Friend will pursue the matter with considerable tenacity, as he has done in the House over many years, so I look forward to receiving a letter in due course.

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to assert to the House that his party has a relatively transparent and democratic means of determining the membership of Select Committees, it is important that the procedure should not be secret. I do not want it to be shrouded in opacity, so will he tell us exactly how the parliamentary Labour party—I am happy to debate my own party's conduct on these matters—determines membership of Select Committees?

This sounds like one of those childhood games of "you show me yours first". It is not necessarily appropriate at this stage to engage in an internal debate about how political parties make decisions. I have dealt with the point already, so it is time for me to move on to deal with the fascinating question of the terms of reference of the new Administration Committee.

Does the Leader of the House agree that if the whole House were involved in the selection of Committee members, it could work to the disadvantage of scrutiny because the majority in the House could impose the Committees that it wanted on the minority? All parties in the House, especially those in opposition, have the prime responsibility to have as effective a system of scrutiny as possible.

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point and allows me to return to the fascinating discussion into which I was about to enter on the terms of reference of the new Administration Committee. The terms of reference will reflect those of the Domestic Committees, the only significant difference being that the function of the Committee will be to consider services provided by, as well as for, the House, which will explicitly allow it to consider services provided for the public. Improving the way in which the House communicates with the public is a crucial matter that we must address in this Parliament.

The motion indicates that the Administration Committee will make recommendations to the House of Commons Commission or the Speaker about services provided. When a Select Committee makes a report to a Government Department, it receives a written reply after a period of time to respond to the points that it raises. Under these arrangements, if the Commission decided not to provide a service that the Administration Committee had identified, would it be a requirement that a written report would have to be produced so that hon. Members would know why their Committee's recommendations had been declined?

There will not be such a requirement, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion could be considered as a part of the important scrutiny work that Select Committees do and the Government's responses to those Committees. I am sure that that procedure ought to followed as good practice.

I welcome the formation of the Administration Committee because far too often in the last Parliament we encountered the problem that Committees decided things that had to be referred to other Committees before progress could be made. Will the Leader of the House confirm that if the Administration Committee makes such a report, there will at least be the opportunity to ask questions about why action has not been taken on its recommendations, if that is the case?

We will need to consider that important point after the Administration Committee has been established and has decided its working patterns. There will be changes as a result of amalgamating the Domestic Committees, so we will need to allow a little time to elapse before determining the consequences of having such a unified Committee, rather than the separate Committees that it is intended to replace.

Exactly in that context, I note that paragraph (6) of motion 4 says that the Administration Committee's Sub-Committees

"shall have power to send for person, papers and records".

That power is also given to the Committee itself. Does that mean that the Committee or its Sub-Committees could call members of the Commission to give evidence, precisely to address the point made by my right hon. Friends the Members for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin)?

I was at pains to try to ensure that the terms of reference of the new unified Committee reflected the terms of reference of the Domestic Committees. Having not had my current responsibilities during the period in which those Committees existed, I cannot tell the House whether the motion precisely reflects the previous situation—the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) pointed out that the motion gives the Administration Committee extensive powers to call for those persons and papers that it requires. No doubt that will be one of the consequential changes that may follow the establishment of this important House Committee.[Interruption.] I am receiving certain indications that perhaps it does not. Nevertheless, it follows on logically from what

As a relatively new Member, I am aware that modernisation needs to take place on many Committees. However, I am surprised by how long it has taken to appoint hon. Members to Committees. Is the Leader of the House also concerned about the delay in appointing Committee members?

I intend to deal with that point when I reach the part of my speech—if we ever get there—on proposals for the appointment of Select Committees. I have been asked about the matter on several occasions in the House and have made it clear, and repeated today, the importance of the role of political parties. If my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is to be satisfied in his understandable concern about the need to respect democratic principles in the selection of Select Committee members, it is important to deal with such matters thoroughly. I have indicated that that has been the case for the Labour party. Thoroughness takes time, but that thorough approach has allowed the Committees to be appointed before the summer recess, which was an undertaking that I gave to the House, and allowed political parties to be involved in the necessary democratic process for the selection of their candidates. That seems to me to be a perfectly proper compromise—

rose—

I sense that I am risking reopening this debate.

I am delighted that the Leader of the House has moved the debate on. As he mentioned my name, I felt obliged to make a contribution on this issue. To answer the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), the process has been relatively fast compared with previous occasions when it sometimes took six or seven months before Committees were set up. The way forward is, again, to remove the power from the Government and the alternative Government, and make it part of Mr. Speaker's duties to convene Select Committees within a given period after a general election. The delay, which is to the benefit only of the Government, would not then occur. Members of Parliament would take control of their own Committees.

I knew that I had made a mistake earlier on, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for continuing the debate.

I shall conclude that debate by dealing with the fifth motion on the Order Paper, which concerns the Finance and Services Committee. The motion makes minor changes to the order of reference of that Committee consequential to the establishment of the new Administration Committee. It also reflects changes in how we refer to the House Administration and the administration estimate.

Motion 5 modifies the operation of the two-Parliament rule for Select Committee Chairmen. Standing Order No. 122A was agreed in May 2002, following the recommendation of the Modernisation Committee. It was not popular with all Members—I recognise that some members of the Liaison Committee, in particular, felt that limiting their term served to reduce the effectiveness of Select Committees—but the majority of the House felt that there was merit in a degree of turnover: Select Committees should not become the established responsibilities of a few senior Members.

The purpose of the motion today is not to reopen that debate but to ensure that the rule achieves its intended purpose. When the House agreed the rule, it agreed an amendment adding the words

"or a continuous period of eight years, whichever is the greater"

in case of very short Parliaments, as in 1974, for example. As a result, I believe unintended by the House, a Chairman who has served for two full Parliaments could be re-elected for a third if the date of his re-election fell just within eight years of his first election. The proposed change would mean that if a Chairman were elected for a third term, the chairmanship would cease at the expiry of eight years from first election.

What happens if the terms of reference or remit of a Select Committee are changed to reflect the departmental configuration of Whitehall? Is it a new Committee?

It is clear that it is a new Committee, and the term would then begin with the commencement of that new Committee.

It may sound old-fashioned, but I do not think that the proposal is fair. I would like the Leader of the House to consider my amendment, which would mean that those people who were incumbent Chairmen as at the general election would not be disadvantaged. If my right hon. Friend is convinced of the merits of his new rule, it should operate so that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), for example, is not disadvantaged in this Parliament by the rules being changed, and the goalposts moved, during this Parliament. The clock started ticking for her period as Chairman of the Transport Committee in the last Parliament.

I do not anticipate that I will betray any confidences if I indicate to my hon. Friend that I have had some serious conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), in which she made her views known with, it is fair to say, considerable force. I make it clear, however, that the amendment does no more than give effect to what the House intended. There was an unintended consequence of the amendment made when this position was first established in the Standing Orders of the House which would allow, for example, someone who had by chance been elected on 21 July 1997 to continue in office for a further full term of Parliament if the relevant meeting happened to take place on 22 July 2005. That was not intended by the House. The House was clear as to its wish, which was to allow right hon. and hon. Members to serve as Select Committee Chairmen for two terms or for eight years, whichever happened to be the longer. The amendment simply gives effect to that; it does no more than that. It is not intended in any way to overturn the previous rule; it simply clarifies that rule and gives effect to what the House originally intended for its Standing Orders.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this very desirable rule should be applied to other office holders in and outside government?

Term limits are common practice in many parts of the United States. There is a term limit for the President of the United States, and I lived for a time in Kentucky, where governors were allowed to serve only one term. That appeared to have something to do with the history of the office and the opportunities that it afforded to its incumbent—I am sure that that is no longer the case. However, term limits are fashionable in some constitutions. Generally speaking, they have not been considered appropriate in the United Kingdom, save for the wish of the House of Commons to ensure a turnover from time to time in the occupancy of the chairmanships of Select Committees—

And save for our having had seven Ministers for Europe in seven years.

It is probably wise to move on to the next fascinating motion. Motion 7 relates to the size of some Select Committees. It proposes that the size of the Defence, Foreign Affairs, Home Affairs, Trade and Industry and Treasury Committees should increase from 11 to 14 members, reflecting the considerable interest in serving on those Committees. It proposes that the size of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee should reduce from 17 to 14 members and that the size of the Regulatory Reform Committee should reduce from 18 to 14.

I appreciate that when the Modernisation Committee recommended a slightly larger increase in the size of the departmental Select Committees in 2002, there was some opposition from the Liaison Committee on the ground that it would inhibit Committee cohesion. The reason for proposing a modest increase today is simply that the interest of Members in serving on some of the Committees is very great. I believe that there is value in ensuring that more Back Benchers are given the opportunity to be involved in the important work of scrutiny that the departmental Select Committees undertake.

Motion 8 makes minor changes to the Standing Orders to reflect the establishment of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. Motions 9 to 31 are nominations to Select Committees in the name of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. I appreciate that these motions have taken a little time to come before the House—longer than I would have liked—but it is very much to be welcomed that most of the Select Committees will, subject to the agreement of the House today, be up and running before the summer recess.

For the first time, as I have said, those nominations are the product, in the Labour party at least, of a transparent party process, and it is inevitable that this should have taken a little time. We hope that the Committee of Selection will be able to bring forward motions to nominate the Science and Technology, Welsh Affairs, and Finance and Services Committees as soon as possible.

I remain committed to strengthening the Select Committee system. Since 2002, there has been a significant increase in the staff resources available to Select Committees and their activity has increased greatly. I will not pretend that this activity is always welcomed by Departments, but that is as it should be. It is widely recognised that the Select Committees now play an important part in our democratic life: they are a crucial check on the work of Government. I pay tribute to the work of Members who served on Committees in the last Parliament, and I anticipate continued vigorous activity in the Parliament ahead.

Motion 32 makes provision for the first meeting of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Motion 33 provides for the re-establishment and nomination of the Modernisation Committee. The Committee has done valuable work since 1997, but I believe that there remains much more that it can usefully look at. Although I know that some Conservative Members are not enthusiasts for modernisation—

That is putting it mildly.

I am delighted to have this opportunity to praise the work of the Modernisation Committee to the right hon. Gentleman.

Can the Leader of the House tell us what the Modernisation Committee can do that the Procedure Committee could not do?

I think that the short answer is probably "deliver", but that may be a little frank for someone who inhabits the Whips Office. My predecessors as Leader of the House have served on the Modernisation Committee and have seen their recommendations through the House. It is important that that momentum is maintained.

If it is true, as the Leader of the House has disgracefully claimed, that the Modernisation Committee can deliver where, he says insultingly, that the Procedure Committee cannot, could that be because the Modernisation Committee is, disgracefully, chaired by a member of the Cabinet?

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has put that spin on my remarks. There was no intention on my part in any way to criticise any other Committee or the way that it operates. I was making it clear that there was a real feeling among Members on both sides of the House—not only on the Government Benches—that it was necessary to bring our practices and procedures into the 20th century, if not the 21st century. That has meant that the work of the Committee has been reflected in practice. Other Committees may work in slower time, but there was a degree of urgency felt by Modernisation Committee members of all political parties that are represented in the House, and that urgency has been reflected in the fact that it has been prepared to deliver.

On the question of delivery, did not the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor as Leader of the House and Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), fail to deliver changes in how we appoint Select Committees?

There was a debate in the House and a vote, and in its wisdom the House chose to reject the proposals of the Modernisation Committee. I do not pretend—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, who is greatly experienced in the ways of the House, will agree—that all recommendations of all Committees will always be accepted on the Floor. On that occasion, they were not.

I am sure that the Leader of House will accept that his chairing of the Modernisation Committee gives it the power to deliver; no other Select Committee has a Cabinet Minister as Chairman. Does he agree that the House works best when Committees that are concerned with the way in which the House operates and scrutinises legislation—the Procedure Committee and the Modernisation Committee—co-operate? Is that not the best to way to proceed? That is why I have chosen again to serve on the Modernisation Committee, having been one of its founding members way back in 1997.

I have always been thoroughly impressed by the hon. Gentleman's work, both generally in the range of activities that he pursues in the House on behalf of his constituents, and specifically in the excellent way in which he has chaired the Procedure Committee—not a Committee on which many right hon. and hon. Members volunteer to serve. He has done so with great distinction and that has informed the work of the Modernisation Committee.

I still believe that there are times in the House when speedy change is required. Perhaps the Modernisation Committee moves more quickly simply because it has the benefit of the Leader of House as its Chairman. That is obviously a matter for the House. However, given the proposal that is before the House, I hope to be re-elected as its Chairman in due course and to be able to continue its excellent work. Crucial to that is the knowledge and experience that Members can bring to bear on its work. If the House so decides, I look forward to the hon. Gentleman again making a valuable contribution to the Committee's work.

Notwithstanding the importance of the Leader of the House chairing the Modernisation Committee, does my right hon. Friend accept that in broad measure it is vital that Select Committees should be Back-Bench Committees? If we are to achieve the cross-party working on which most Select Committees rely, it is important that Opposition Members do not keep on switching between Front-Bench and Back-Bench responsibilities, by being Front Benchers and yet serving on Select Committees. Sometimes, that is used for partisan reasons.

I am dealing today only with the current nominations. Those questions will logically follow later in our proceedings.

The Leader of the House will be aware of exchanges in the previous Parliament involving the Liaison Committee following the Hutton inquiry's access to information of a broad-ranging nature. Subsequently, in meetings with the Liaison Committee and others, the Government indicated a more flexible and open approach to the provision of information to Select Committees. Is the right hon. Gentleman yet in a position to be able to define that greater openness and access to information, so that new Chairmen of Committees might be fully apprised of what they can expect when they call for papers in the context of inquiries?

I had hoped that the practice had already improved. I was not aware of any serious complaints from Chairmen of Select Committees. I hope that if there are problems about access to papers, the right hon. Gentleman will write to me about them, and I shall deal with that in the usual way.

The Government have pledged to revisit the Osmotherly rules. Which of the rules have been changed?

The Osmotherly rules, I am informed, will be issued tomorrow. Perhaps we can have a debate on that rather complex subject if one is required. At one stage in my previous career I studied those rules with considerable care. No doubt my hon. Friend will be able to refer to that in due course.

As the question of Osmotherly rules has come up, can we place in Hansard the advice that the Clerk of the House of Commons gave to Lord Hutton that the Osmotherly rules were not agreed between the Government and Parliament? We need to reaffirm that, particularly as coincidentally the rules are to be published tomorrow. There should be no misunderstanding; to these Houses of Parliament, they are not worth the paper that they are written on. They have been handed down like tablets of stone by the Executive. I will certainly not be signing up to them, and judging from the mood the House, I do not think that it will be signing up to them either.

It would be nice to see the rules.

Indeed it might be better to see them before we reach clear conclusions on their content.

I was referring to the contribution that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst makes to any reference to modernisation. The work of Conservatives members of the Modernisation Committee has been extremely valuable in taking forward changes in the House, and I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman's observations on the Committee's work during this Parliament.

I commend my right hon. Friend for congratulating the Modernisation Committee on its very good although sometimes glacially slow work. I ask him not to be unkind to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), because by his obstruction, by his keeping up colleagues late at night and by his using the rules as he did, he has caused more modernisation in this Chamber than virtually any other Member. My right hon. Friend should congratulate him on doing that.

The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has made a distinctive contribution to the work of the House, as he did to the European Parliament. I first met him when he was an enthusiastic Member of the European Parliament, which he has tried to live down ever since. We all have records to defend, and at some stage we will be able to debate European matters, but I need to make progress.

I return to the fascinating subject of the terms of reference of the Modernisation Committee, which Members will have noticed are slightly changed from those in the previous Parliament. The function of the Committee will be to consider how the House operates and to make recommendations for modernisation, rather than being limited to the consideration of the practices and procedures of the House. That is intended to ensure that the Modernisation Committee is not constrained in its field of inquiry. It would, for example, be able to consider matters touching on the administration of the House.

Motion 34 provides for the membership of the Liaison Committee. As in the past, it will include the Chairmen of all Select Committees. In addition, as in the previous Parliament, the motion nominates the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), in anticipation of the fact that the Committee might wish to appoint a Chairman who does not also represent the interests of a particular Committee.

It is a great innovation to put the Father of the House on the Liaison Committee. Does the Leader of the House think that the Liaison Committee reflects the membership of the House? There is still no minority party membership of it. If the arithmetic were applied to reflect the proportions of representation, we should have a place on the Liaison Committee. Will he work to ensure that the Committee reflects the views of all parties in the House?

It is important that the Liaison Committee reflects the Committees of the House. It is there for a particular purpose, which is not necessarily to reflect all the political parties represented in the House. The difficulty in practice with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is that he would have to persuade the House that the minority parties could agree on who would represent them. I expect that he would experience some problems doing so but, nevertheless, the traditional purpose of the Liaison Committee is to reflect the Committees. It is not necessarily to reflect the political parties in the same way as Select Committee membership.

I would like to try to help the Leader of the House by urging him to support the amendment that I tabled with other hon. Members. It says that

"the senior backbench member of the Chairmen's Panel shall also be a member of the Liaison Committee".

That would give the minority parties an opportunity, if they served at length and with distinction on the Chairmen's Panel, to serve on the Liaison Committee. My excellent amendment, which I shall seek to move if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, would serve a double purpose and provide the minority parties with the opportunity for which the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) asked.

The right hon. Gentleman has assisted the minority parties and me with his suggestion but, following the earlier mention of glacial progress, I doubt whether the minority parties would want to wait quite that long.

The Leader of the House must accept that the stature of the Liaison Committee has changed dramatically. It used to bring together Select Committee Chairmen to discuss Select Committee business, but now, twice a year, it conducts a two-hour interrogation or question time with the Prime Minister. The Liaison Committee has changed substantially, so the Leader of the House ought to listen to the minority parties, particularly if they can suggest one person to represent their interests.

I remain open to sensible suggestions. I was simply pointing out that the minority parties may not agree on a single candidate, so the difficulty would then arise of how to choose between the different parties that we loosely call the minority parties.

I think that in principle the right hon. Gentleman does not object to minority parties serving on the Liaison Committee. Would he be satisfied if we produced a formula or process whereby we could share a position on the Liaison Committee?

I am a deeply cautious lawyer and I would prefer to wait and see what sensible proposal the hon. Gentleman came up with.

An amendment could be tabled.

Perhaps the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is still thinking about it, but I look forward to considering the results carefully.

The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Frank Cook) and other hon. Members, which proposes that the senior Back-Bench member of the Chairmen's Panel should be an additional Liaison Committee member, may have something to do with the fact that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) may unfortunately lose his place on the Liaison Committee because of the two-Parliament rule. I have already expressed the esteem in which I hold him. His experience and independence of mind are widely respected in the House.

But—

There is, however, a question, as I have already suggested, about the extent to which we should continue to expand the size of the Liaison Committee. It is a practical question—if the House wishes to have a much larger Liaison Committee with, as the right hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) suggested, functions very different from its traditional role, it will bring that to bear in its consideration of the amendment. I accept, however, that the amendment opens the way to further membership, not least by the minority parties. I therefore have concerns about the size, functions and nature of the Liaison Committee, but it is obviously a matter for the House to decide whether to accept the proposal.

I am curious about the contradictions in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. A few minutes ago, he talked about the need to expand the membership of the Defence Committee because of Members' enthusiasm to serve on it, and he has tabled a motion to that effect. He is now expressing concern that the Liaison Committee may become too big. What is the optimal size of those Committees?

I do not think that there is any contradiction in my remarks, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman seriously believes that there is. The Liaison Committee has had a particular function for a number of years. I accept that that function has changed, but it is for the House to decide whether, as a result, a bigger Committee should perform a slightly different function, particularly in relation to the questioning of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Unfortunately, however, the hon. Gentleman's argument about Members' enthusiasm to serve on the Liaison Committee probably applies to most Members, so we need a practical means to limit membership of that Committee. Traditionally, such membership has extended to Select Committee Chairmen, but it is right to add the Father of the House, because he served a particular role with great success as the Chairman of the previous Liaison Committee. Whether we wish to go further is a matter for the House.

The Leader of the House has suggested that I may have a limited vested interest in the amendment, but does he accept that the Chairmen's Panel has an important role to play in the House? It is sensible and appropriate for a Back-Bench Member representing the Panel to have an input in the Liaison Committee. The Chairmen's Panel meets under the auspices of the Chairman of Ways and Means, but it should have direct access to the Liaison Committee. Colleagues on both sides of the House support the amendment, and we believe that it is appropriate that the senior member—currently a Conservative, but it could be Labour Member—should have a place on the Liaison Committee because of the Panel's role and experience.

As ever, the hon. Gentleman has made his case with great clarity. He makes a perfectly proper point on which the House will decide in due course.

The motion makes a novel proposition that has not been considered by the House before. May I suggest a compromise that could be more advantageous than a likely defeat for the motion? Would the Leader of the House be happy for my proposition to receive urgent consideration by the Modernisation Committee, which would then report to the House as rapidly as possible?

I am grateful to the Father of the House for his suggestion. If the proposal is defeated today, I am certainly willing to consider his offer as part of the work of the Modernisation Committee, once it is established.

I now come to motions 35 to 38, which relate to pay for Committee Chairmen. Motion 35 takes note of the recent report from the independent Senior Salaries Review Body on pay for Standing Committee Chairmen, and expresses the opinion of the House that pay for Standing Committee Chairmen should be introduced. I am sure that the House will join me in thanking its chairman, John Baker, and the members of the SSRB for their careful work in preparing the report. They were asked to consider how, if the House decided that it was appropriate to give additional pay to the Chairmen of Standing Committees, that could best be achieved. They found that there was a good case for making an additional payment, at least to Chairmen of Standing Committees undertaking more substantial duties. They outlined a range of options for methods of payment. They concluded that a two-tier panel, with higher payments for members undertaking a minimum time commitment, would represent the best way to match contribution and reward, but they found that a tiered structure of payment based on length of service, as proposed by the Chairman of Ways and Means, was acceptable if the House was disposed to prefer it.

I have considered those options carefully, and I have worked closely with the Chairman of Ways and Means to structure a manageable system that is both open and transparent to the House. It is the strong advice of the Chairman that a two-tier panel would be unworkable and divisive, and that a tiered system based on experience is the option most suited to the needs of the House. He has assured me that there will be a linkage between pay and work load—the more experienced members of the Panel will be expected to do more work—and performance will be properly managed. While in the past there was no reason to eject a Panel member who was able to commit only occasional hours to the Panel, this will no longer be the case. Members who are, for whatever reason, not able to contribute as expected to the Panel will be discharged and their remuneration will cease with immediate effect.

The Minister knows that I was implacably opposed and remain opposed to the paying of Chairmen of Select Committees, but I invite him to consider that his proposition is absurd and will create new anomalies. For instance, there has been a row about Ministers who get compensation money when they cease to be Ministers. Next that will apply to former Chairmen of Committees. It implies that some Members pedal faster than other Members. To suggest that there should be some compensation for sitting in the Chair, as skilled as that is, and presiding over Committees, and that Chairmen should get more than other Members, is unhealthy in a democracy. As the Minister has kindly agreed to refer some matters to the Modernisation Committee, will he do the same with this suggestion—that every Member should be expected to take a turn at presiding over a Standing Committee? That is what happens in the Congress of the United States. It would be healthy for us all to get a slice of the action and we all continue to get the basic pay, consistent with democratic norms. The proposal is extraordinarily dangerous and foolhardy in the extreme.

I do not intend to debate with my hon. Friend the principle, which has previously been established on the basis that there should be an alternative career route for Members who choose not to become Ministers or prefer to serve the House in different ways. [Interruption.] I chose my words carefully.

The proposition that we should not recognise the considerable skill required to chair a Committee effectively is wrong. I served on a number of Finance Bill Committees when I first came to the House. Chairing the Committee was an extremely difficult and delicate task that required a considerable understanding of the rather complex proposals contained in the Bill. We need to give some recognition to those who serve the House in that way. It is not a task that gets any kind of public approval or even respect, as it is highly unlikely that members of the public would appreciate the substantial amount of time given over to those responsibilities by a relatively limited number of Members.

The proposal is consistent with the previous decision taken by the House in relation to recognising the contribution that Members make. In some ways, it is more important than the remuneration offered to Select Committee Chairs, because they at least get public recognition and a degree of public exposure for the work that they do. That cannot be said of members of the Chairmen's Panel.

I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has just said in that regard. As he develops his argument on the motion, could he tell us what precedent there is for someone not going on to the full rate of pay when they are appointed to a position either in the Government or in the House? That might be helpful. Could he also explain why he believes the motion does not reflect the fifth recommendation in the SSRB report, which states:

"We consider that . . . a two-tier Panel would represent the best way to match contribution and reward, whilst ensuring equivalence with the pay of Select Committee Chairmen in appropriate cases"?

It seems that whereas the Government make great play of adhering to and reflecting SSRB recommendations, in this case they have gone in an entirely different direction.

I sought to explain to the House the reason for that. I suggested to the Chairman of Ways and Means that he would have to work fairly hard to persuade me that I should depart from the recommendation of the SSRB, but I emphasised to the House the very strong conviction that he has. He has some responsibility for managing the Chairmen's Panel and he believes strongly that this is the best way of achieving the objective that he requires. I have accepted his advice and I am not in any way retreating from it. If the right hon. Gentleman reads further in the SSRB report, he will see that the board does not rule out, and indeed would accept, a more tiered arrangement.

On the right hon. Gentleman's first proposition, it is important that in ensuring full respect for the decision of the House, if the House accepts the principle and puts it into practice, that there is a clear connection between the amount of work and time that individuals devote to their duties as part of the Chairmen's Panel, and the remuneration that they receive. For the moment there are some members of the Panel who, for perfectly proper reasons, I am sure, are not able to devote the appropriate amount of time to the work, in which case it is not inappropriate that they should be more modestly rewarded. I want to demonstrate that the arrangement is designed to ensure a consistency between the amount of time that is devoted to the task and the appropriate reward.

An observation, then a question: it is absurd to pay people such vastly different rates on the basis of length of service, when they are doing essentially the same job. Can my Friend remind the House how Members get on to the Chairmen's Panel, what the criteria for selection are, and if Members are ever rejected?

On length of service, if the House accepts the proposition that the responsibility requires skill and ability, that skill and ability are acquired in the course of doing the job. It is not a task that is easy to learn about, other than by chairing the relevant Committees. There is therefore a proper connection between length of service, and skill and ability. I am assured by the Chairman of Ways and Means that he will be able to take account of length of service in the decision that he takes as to which member of the Panel is appropriate to serve on which Committee. In those circumstances, I believe that is the best way forward.

I can happily make comments, as I have not been a member of the Chairmen's Panel for some time. Would my right hon. Friend emphasise that the job is exhausting and boring, and if it is properly done it requires a considerable amount of time? Chairmen do not get recognition of the extra hours that they put in. Perhaps he will make it clear to the House that if we want to continue to have an important and sensible tradition of using our own Members to chair our Committees, we ought to make sure that we treat them with respect, if nothing else.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her practical observations and her experience of dealing with these matters. She reflects exactly my admiration for those who choose to serve on the Chairmen's Panel, particularly those who put in a considerable amount of time which, as she says, is not properly recognised—it is generally not recognised at all outside the House. That is the underlying purpose of the proposal—to ensure that that recognition is given.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the payments to the Chairs of Select Committees also allow them to have better pension emoluments at the end? Will the new awards that he proposes be part of the pension scheme, so that Chairmen would inherit them for life, as it were?

I am not sure about my hon. Friend's last proposition, but the emoluments are pensionable and will continue to be pensionable so long as they are in payment. I am not sure that I entirely take his last point, but his basic proposition is correct.

The motion provides for a tiered structure: those who have served for five years or more, irrespective of any breaks in service, will be eligible for an additional payment of £13,107, the same amount that applies to Select Committee pay. Those who have served for at least three years but less than five will qualify for an additional £9,960. Those who have served for at least one year but less than three will qualify for an additional £7,340, and those in their first years will qualify for £2,615. Those amounts will be uprated annually in line with Members' pay. The pay will be pensionable, and the necessary regulations will be introduced as soon as possible. The overall cost of the proposal, which is estimated to be some £400,000 a year including national insurance and pensions contributions, will depend on the experience of the Panel at any given time.

The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has tabled an amendment that would provide an alternative grading structure. Amendment (b) provides for a two-tier structure, with half pay for those with less than two years' service. The appropriate system is a matter for the House to decide, but the amendment would obviously increase the overall cost.

The SSRB recommended that the question of Chairmen's interests and payment for outside activities should be considered before payment is introduced. I hope that the Standards and Privileges Committee is willing to consider that issue and to produce guidance, as it did for Select Committee Chairmen, and an implementation date of 1 November has therefore been proposed with that in mind.

Whether to introduce pay for Standing Committee Chairmen in the form proposed is a matter for the House to decide. Some hon. Members may feel that service on the Panel is honour enough or that it is wrong to reward some aspects of an hon. Member's work and not others. As I have said, however, I believe that it is right to recognise the considerable commitment made by Standing Committee Chairmen, which involves not only time in the Chair, but time for preparation and the requirement to keep available time that may not be required. Chairmanship offers little in terms of public profile—indeed, it requires hon. Members to stay quiet on Bills that they Chair. I hope that hon. Members agree that that contribution should be recognised—

Will the Leader of the House tell us—

Shall I give way?

Yes; I am enormously grateful. As Ministers go, I am fond of the Leader of the House.

The Crossrail Bill will no doubt be chaired by a member of the Panel. The procedure might last for many months, when a Standing Committee would not be involved. Would the meter run during that time? The motion does not consider that matter. Approximately how many hon. Members will be left on standard MP's pay if the motions are passed tonight?

I am always grateful for my hon. Friend's concern, and I am even more grateful for his questions. I sure that his final point will be tabled as a written question, when I shall answer it, but I cannot answer it off the top of my head

Motion 36 is an effective motion that gives effect to the previous motion to which the Queen's recommendation has been signified, because it involves Government expenditure, including the Treasury contribution to Members' pensions. It will be moved if the House agrees the opinion motion without amendment.

Motion 37 extends the current arrangements for Select Committee Chairmen's pay to those Select Committees that are not already eligible. In its 2003 report on Select Committee Chairmen's pay, the SSRB suggested which Committee Chairmen should be remunerated, but it said that the final decision should rest with the House. At the time, there was some unhappiness that the distinction between externally focused scrutiny Committees and other Committees did not fairly reflect the relative work loads.

In introducing the motion on Standing Committee Chairs, I thought it only right to give the House the opportunity to decide whether the remaining Select Committees should also receive remuneration. The remaining Committees include the Administration Committee—this is contingent on the motion appointing that Committee being agreed by the House—the Finance and Services Committee, the Liaison Committee, the Procedure Committee, the Committee of Selection and the Committee on Standards and Privileges. Those Committee Chairmen's responsibilities are varied, but they are comparable in work load to those that are already paid. In some ways, those Chairmen are even more deserving, because they do their work on behalf of us all out of the media spotlight. The cost of the proposal depends on take-up, but it would amount to around £17,000 a year per Chairman, including national insurance and pensions contributions.

Motion 38 is again an effective motion—it gives effect to the opinion motion on Select Committee pay—to which the Queen's recommendation has been signified.

Motion 39 amends Standing Order No. 4 so that members of the Panel would continue to serve on it until the end of the Parliament, unless they were discharged by the Speaker. At present, the Speaker has to reappoint the Panel each Session. The change is intended to remove an unnecessary complication in the arrangements for additional pay by making service continuous.

Finally, motion 40 amends Standing Order No. 137A to empower the Welsh Affairs Committee to hold formal joint meetings with Committees of the National Assembly for Wales. That would make permanent a change agreed by the House, on an experimental basis, in the previous Parliament. The Welsh Affairs Committee and Committees of the National Assembly for Wales held eight joint meetings under that temporary power for the scrutiny of Bills and draft Bills and other purposes, and the Liaison Committee has pointed out the strong case for making the power permanent.

Taken together, the motions amount to a useful package, which will strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive and enhance how we operate within this House. They provide a basis for hon. Members to take forward the work of scrutiny and for further modernisation in the Parliament ahead. I commend the motions to the House.

I want to establish cross-party consensus on most of those changes, although I shall make some specific comments. I want to address three key points—the formation of Select Committees, the creation of the new Administration Committee and pay for Standing Committee Chairmen.

Having indicated that there is a degree of consensus between Front-Bench Members on the detail of the motions, I shall begin with a clear challenge to the Government on the establishment of Select Committees. The matter has become a saga, which is not good enough, and the public cannot understand why it takes this House so long to establish Select Committees. I was first elected on 6 June 2001, which was one month later than the election in this Parliament, and the Select Committee's were up and running for their first meetings before the summer recess. This time, with an extra month, we are just about in a position to give those Committees the opportunity to meet for a first introductory sitting before the summer recess, but three Committees will not even be able to do that, which is not good enough.

The Leader of the House and the Government should set out a process by which that objective will be achieved more rapidly in future. For example, this House has lost the opportunity to hold a Liaison Committee meeting in July to address with the Prime Minister important issues that have arisen over the past few months, which is simply unacceptable. I hope that the Leader of the House will take away this summer's experiences and return with proposals to speed up the process and to make it more effective, so that the public do not say, "Where are the Select Committees?"

I understand the motivations of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), but he must consider his proposal's practicalities. Many new Select Committee members will be new hon. Members who are finding their way in the House for the first time. An election process for individual Select Committee members is impractical. I understand why he has advanced that option and his desire to speed up the process—indeed, I share his desire to introduce a speedier process. If one examines the motions, however, it is apparent that new hon. Members form the bedrock of Select Committees, and it is unrealistic to expect them to stand for election shortly after they have arrived in this place. Although I share his aspiration to introduce a new approach to Select Committees, his approach is not the right one.

If the hon. Gentleman reads the amendment, which is supported by 65 hon. Members from all parties in this House, he will see that it simply requests that we should re-examine the process to see whether it can be done better. He started his speech by making that point, so if he believes it—I am sure that he does—he should support the amendment's sentiment. I have asked the Leader of the House to re-examine the matter, so that we do not experience a delay in four years' time. That can be done by returning Committees from the Government to the House and by involving all hon. Members in the process. It is not beyond the wit of hon. Members to create a system by which new hon. Members, old hon. Members and hon. Members who deserve recognition are on the Committees of their choice. If we continue to allow the system to be run by Front Benchers, we will continue to be in thrall to them.

The hon. Gentleman will know from my remarks that I share his desire to examine the way in which things work. However, I disagree with some of the detailed points that he has made in advancing his argument in the past few days, as they are not practical. We all rightly share the aspiration of ensuring that in four or five years' time, when the new Parliament meets after the next general election, we do not have a prolonged process for forming the Committees that removes from the House central parts of its scrutiny role and leaves us with the current situation as regards the Liaison Committee whereby it is not possible for the Committee to meet before the summer. That is wrong.

I take the hon. Gentleman at face value, as I have worked with him in Committee and know where he stands on such issues. Will he therefore, in the position that he occupies on behalf of the Opposition, do what I am going to do and write formally to the Leader of the House requesting that he and the Modernisation Committee, and anyone else who wishes to be involved, look at this process? We need to create a broad consensus in the House so that perhaps we can do it better.

We do not need to write; we merely need to hear the Deputy Leader of the House say when he winds up that the Government accept that too much time has passed before appointing Select Committees and that the Government will consider how to ensure that that does not happen in future.

I understand that there has been no lack of recruits early on in this Parliament. In the last Parliament, the Opposition had some difficulties as a result of our relatively few numbers. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unfortunate that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen should serve on Select Committees? On the Public Accounts Committee, we preserved a virginal purity in that matter by having no Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. In life one should do to others as one might have done to oneself. There will come a time when there is a Conservative Government, and will we want Labour spokesmen on defence serving on the Defence Committee? I think not. This is an opportunity for my hon. Friend to make it clear that this is not a practice that we want to carry on in this Parliament.

My view is that we should provide full opportunities for every Member of this House to play a full part in its proceedings in different ways, whether it is on the Opposition or the Government Front Benches, on Select Committees or on Standing Committees. I would not wish to be proscriptive today, but I share my hon. Friend's wish to ensure that Back Benchers who want to serve on Select Committees have the opportunity to do so.

The hon. Gentleman did not give a straightforward answer to his hon. Friend, who is, as he well knows, making a very clear point—that there should be a principle in this House that Select Committees should consist only of Back-Bench Members because that is important to the working of those Committees. Cannot the hon. Gentleman stand up on behalf of his party and urge that important principle?