My right hon. Friend is correct, though of course the day-to-day business of the Committee will be very transparent because it will be open to the public so that those who are interested can go and see the workings, particularly when any petitions are being dealt with that are directly relevant to certain communities, groups or organisations. It is not beyond the wit of this place to hold those proceedings in a room that has a television facility so that they can be televised in the same way as Public Bill Committees and Select Committees. The general principle of transparency so that people can see the workings, and follow and monitor the proceedings is crucial.
It was a little unfair of some hon. Members to question paying the Chair. Frankly, given what they will give up, I would not mind if every member of the Committee were paid rather than just the Chair. Serving on it is quite a sacrifice in many ways. We also have a precedent in that the Chair of the Crossrail Committee was paid, as are the Chairs of Select Committees. Having served on three Select Committees, I know that the work of one of them is very brief. When I served on it for a year, it met once a week late on a Wednesday afternoon, and it usually sat for about eight minutes. It always amazed me that the Chair of that Committee was paid the same as the Chair of the Defence Committee or the Chair of the Treasury Committee. It is known in the trade as a very cushy number. However, the job of
this Committee’s Chair will not be cushy, and serving on it will be onerous for all the members. One therefore wonders whether it is fair to restrict payment to the Chair.
The amendments that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) have tabled and the debate today have given us an opportunity to consider ideas about how to improve the Bill. Many of the decisions are to do with the day-to-day running of the Committee, and they must be left up to it when it starts its work. As we heard from previous contributions, other subjects are in the remit of the House of Commons authorities, and are therefore matters for them. However, I believe that, ultimately the House must examine the legislative process for such projects because it is deeply flawed.
I was told at the Department for Transport that the basis of the legislation—I assume this is correct because, unlike some people, I believe what civil servants tell me; I may not always accept it, but I believe it—is the legislation in the 16th century that established tollbooths, and that the Victorians thought that it was suitable legislation for granting the permissions to build a railway. Since the railways began, they have always had to have planning permission through legislation in Parliament. Of course, the Victorians were very different. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said in the past, when the concept of building a railway from London was dreamt up in the early 1830s, it took from 1832 to 1837 to think about it, legislate for it, build it and get it running. Clearly, using a premise based on tollbooths is totally out of sync with building high-speed rail, Crossrail, an airport or an extra runway, wherever—if ever—there is going to be one. We should consider that carefully and modernise as a matter of urgency so that this country does not lose out on badly needed infrastructure because of the sheer length of time it takes to get it.
3.28 pm