§ The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett)I beg to move,
That the Resolution of 6th December 1991 relating to travel by Members to European Community Institutions be rescinded.
That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made as from 1st April 1999 for reimbursing Members in respect of the cost of travelling on parliamentary duties between the United Kingdom and any European Union institution in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg or the national parliament of another European Union member state and any additional expenses necessarily incurred in such travelling, subject to the limit that
(1) the amount payable to a Member in any year, beginning with 1st April, shall not exceed the aggregate of—
(2) expenditure in pursuance of this Resolution within financial year 1999–2000 shall not exceed the total currently planned for expenditure on travel by Members to European Union institutions within that year.
- (a) the cost of a return business class airfare for the journey on the assumption that the journey begins and ends at a London airport and that the destination is any of the three cities mentioned above or the location of the national parliament of a European Union member state; and
- (b) twice the corresponding civil service class A standard subsistence rate for the time being in operation; and
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)I must tell the House that Madam Speaker has selected the following: amendment (a), to leave out the first reference to '1st April' and insert `lst November'.
Amendment (k), after subsection (1), insert
'(1A) a Member must submit in advance to the Fees Office a statement of the visit's purpose, location and duration and the persons or organisations to be met'.
§ Mrs. BeckettThis is a classic, although relatively minor, House matter, which has a slightly odd history. It would be wise to point out to the House—and, indeed, to one or two people from the media who seem to have been misled about it—that this is an issue in relation to which members of the Government have nothing whatever at stake.
The motion proposes to vary the scheme introduced nearly 10 years ago by the Conservative Government, which offers Members funding to make one journey a year to familiarise themselves with the workings of the European institutions—that is, the European Parliament or the Commission.
If the motion is passed, the funding made available—which has, I understand, never been increased, and in which no increase is proposed today—would be available either, as now, for one visit a year to those institutions, or, at the choice of a Member, for one visit a year to the Parliament of another member state instead. The low take-up of the fund suggests that at present it is of less use to Members than, presumably, its originators expected.
I see no particular virtue in preserving unchanged a scheme of little use or value if quite a minor change might make it more useful; and when the change was suggested, I was perfectly willing to see whether it would increase the value of the scheme to Members.
412 The motion has appeared on the Order Paper several times now. I freely confess that I had, mistakenly, assumed it to be non-contentious, as it involves a minor rule change and no—I repeat, no—extra funding. When an objection was first made, I therefore imagined that there was a misunderstanding as to what was intended. However, it now appears that there was no misunderstanding, but some real objection, and that is why the matter now comes before the House for debate as well as decision.
Before those who wish to see the matter debated get too excited or carried away, let me set out why I thought that this was not a matter of contention across the Floor of the House. The basic scheme was introduced under the Conservative Government—incidentally, all those who have objected so far were Ministers in that Government—and there is no extra funding to arouse concern.
Initially, it appeared that the objection might be based on a misunderstanding, as it was first suggested that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee had objected because his Committee had not been consulted. I wrote to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) expressing dismay at any perceived discourtesy, but also some surprise, because the PAC seemed to have had no role hitherto in the setting up or administration of the scheme. Indeed, it is a little hard to see why it would.
Press reports have since suggested that some other objection is in fact entertained, and that can be aired here today.
§ Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire)I think that the right hon. Lady is coming to the end of her remarks, so will she give us some information? What was the overall take-up of the previous system among hon. Members?
§ Mrs. BeckettFrom memory, I believe that about 68 or 70 Members—certainly a small number—used a small proportion of the fund.
I repeat that, to me, the proposal seems a minor matter that might be of assistance and use to Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House—and, indeed, to those on the Opposition Front Bench. It is not of the slightest benefit in any way, shape or form to the Government. It is for the House to decide whether it wishes to deny itself that facility, and I invite it to make its decision.
§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)The Leader of the House has been more or less accurate in her description of what brought this matter to the Floor of the House. There were repeated attempts to sneak it through quietly without debate, as many things go through the House, but I, and others, took the view that it was not a minor matter, as it involves a substantial sum of public money. It should be aired in public, because it involves Members voting themselves the opportunity to travel at taxpayers' expense. I would have thought that that was a reasonable matter for a public airing, and I am therefore pleased that we now have the opportunity briefly to debate the matter here, to have it out in the open and vote on it properly, so that everybody can see where everybody else stands.
413 It is odd that the Leader of the House first said that this was a minor matter, and then went on to emphasise that there was no extra funding. I am glad that she now accepts the virtue of that claim. There was a time when Labour Members—perhaps even the right hon. Lady herself, in a previous incarnation—might have thought that extra funding was a virtue, but I am happy to see that she now regards the fact that there is no extra funding as a plus. At least we have moved some distance in that direction, for which I am grateful.
However, that is not the point at issue. The real issue is this: if one sets up a system with public funding—taxpayers' money—and there is a derisorily small take-up, since only a small proportion of Members of Parliament decide to spend that money travelling to European Union institutions in boring old Strasbourg, Luxembourg and Brussels, what does one do? I suggest that we scrap the scheme and save the taxpayer some money. Give the money back to the taxpayer and say, "MPs have been given a chance to travel at your expense. They haven't taken it up, so the most logical thing is to do away with the scheme."
§ Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)I declare no interest, for the simple reason that I have never made myself available for any such trips to Europe, but I can see how the amended idea would have a great advantage. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that as we are going in for afforestation, and new national forests have been set up, it might be useful for Members whose constituencies are involved to go to, say, Finland, which has a national afforestation policy, and learn about that?
§ Mr. ForthIf I thought that the Finnish national Parliament was in the middle of a forest, I might agree.
Allegedly—I shall say more about my reasons for using that term in a moment—the point of the scheme is for Members of Parliament to visit other national Parliaments. My point was that my preference, which I hope my vote will later be able to reflect, would be to scrap the whole scheme and hand the money back to the taxpayer.
Instead it is suggested that we say to Members, "I know that you didn't really want to go to boring places such as Strasbourg, Luxembourg or Brussels, so we shall offer you the chance to go somewhere more interesting." By including European Union capitals and Parliaments, we shall open up the possibility of Members going to Athens, Rome or Lisbon, for example. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) has said that he wants to go to Helsinki. Good for him, but what we are debating is whether he should go at the taxpayers' expense.
§ Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border)A wonderful new Center Pares-type holiday experience centre has just been created in my constituency. On the basis of the logic of the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), I wonder whether it would be advantageous for me to travel to the south of Portugal this summer, or to the beaches of the south of France, or Disneyland in Paris, and see how they do such 414 things there. The proposal is wide open to abuse, especially if we extend it further, as the hon. Member for St. Helens, South suggests.
§ Mr. ForthThat may be so, but my right hon. Friend will be acquainted with the wording of the motion that we are debating, which says that Members should be reimbursed for
the cost of travelling on parliamentary duties between the United Kingdom and any European Union institution in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg or the national parliament of another European Union member state".It is envisaged that Members of the Westminster Parliament will go to other national Parliaments. That seems a fairly open and shut case.However, how we would define parliamentary duties, how we would satisfy ourselves that Members really were travelling on parliamentary duties, and how we would know what they did when they got where they were going is the subject of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis). No doubt he will speak to that in a moment, and I do not want to steal his thunder. However, there could be the merest question in some of our minds—I put it no more strongly than that—if hon. Members were able to travel at the taxpayer's expense to such places as Lisbon, Athens or Rome. I leave it to the imagination to decide whether their minds would be entirely concentrated on their parliamentary duties.
§ Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport)I have used the scheme. As I am a member of the NATO parliamentary group, I visited Brussels, where I spent a day with the NATO parliamentary secretariat, and I also visited Strasbourg and saw the European Parliament, which did not impress me, although it broadened my experience. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a great difference between travelling to such institutions, where there is an infrastructure ready to receive the individual who wishes to broaden his knowledge of them, and travelling to Lisbon or Athens, turning up as a tripper at the front door, not speaking the language and with no proper infrastructure to receive visitors?
§ Mr. ForthMy hon. Friend raises an important point. My right hon. Friend's amendment touches on the extent to which we could satisfy ourselves that the trips were being made for a proper reason and carried out in a proper way. That is part of my argument against the motion, quite apart from the fact that it has been backdated to 1 April, which I find reprehensible.
When the measure was originally tabled, in an attempt to sneak it through quietly without debate, it was before 1 April. Now that we are returning to the matter almost into June, the movers have not even bothered to change the date. It seems to give some weird kind of retrospectivity—perhaps time travel is involved, as well as distance travel.
It appears that we could have travelled from 1 April onwards, according to the terms of the motion. Whether hon. Members could present their plane tickets from any journey made since 1 April is an interesting matter, to which I may or may not receive a reply towards the end of the debate. It strikes me as more than a little bizarre that we are being asked retrospectively to approve travel of a rather dubious nature.
415 I shall leave it to others to decide whether Members of Parliament should travel business class, but why they should get twice the corresponding civil service class A standard subsistence rate is beyond me. I should have thought that the civil service class A subsistence rate was quite sufficient for most Members of Parliament. The whole thing reeks of Members of Parliament voting themselves something rather splendid and jolly.
Given that hon. Members have not taken up the more modest offer that was available before, it is reprehensible that instead of doing away with the facility all together, the House is being asked to make it more attractive and to induce more of them to take up the possibility. The taxpayers must be agape at what is going on, at the very time when we in Westminster often criticise what is going on in Brussels in the European Commission, or in Strasbourg in the European Parliament.
We often criticise those institutions. We would lay ourselves open to similar accusations if the Members of the European Parliament said, "Are you not the people who did not take up the opportunity to come to Strasbourg and Brussels, but are now voting yourselves the opportunity to visit more exotic locations?" It simply is not good enough.
There is now little opportunity to amend the motion in the way that I originally intended. When we divide on it, I shall vote against it, because I believe that it is my duty to the taxpayer not to vote myself and my colleagues increased opportunities to travel at taxpayers' expense, but where possible—
§ Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)Does the right hon. Gentleman not have a responsibility to his constituents to know something about how European institutions work, and to go to places such as Brussels and find out what is available for the benefit of constituents? Of course I know that the right hon. Gentleman has considerable experience of Brussels, as he was an MEP for five years. Presumably he travelled a great deal at that time and knows his way around, but many of us who have not been MEPs need to get there so that we can make the case for our constituencies, our regions and our country.
§ Mr. ForthI hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I do not agree that the taxpayer should pay for him to go with a begging bowl to get more taxpayers' money out of Brussels in order to recycle it back to this country. That has never appealed to me, and we should not encourage it.
The hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to point out that I have a passing knowledge of such matters. I was an MEP for five years, and I was also a member of the Council of Ministers for nearly nine years. My knowledge leads me to say that I am in no great hurry to return to those institutions, which I found profoundly unattractive—but that is a debate for another day.
The proposition before us is simple. It needs no gilding or elaboration. Either we say that the fund, not having been properly taken up, is returned to the taxpayer, or we vote ourselves the opportunity to spend it much more freely and much more frequently. I know which way I shall vote.
§ Mr. David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden)The interesting part of the debate is the degree of misunderstanding of my purpose and that of my right 416 hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in objecting to the motion. I know that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) will try to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He seems to think that our objection is part of a Euro-sceptic plot. It is anything but that. If one took a Euro-sceptic perspective, one would encourage visits to national Parliaments rather than to European institutions.
The Leader of the House expressed another misunderstanding, which I have corrected in a letter to her. It was based on my comment to her Parliamentary Private Secretary when I was asked why I objected. I said that I was the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. It was not a matter of amour propre or of being consulted. I was concerned for the reputation of the House. The Public Accounts Committee was created in the first instance because of the poor reputation of public service in this country. My concern was to protect the reputation of the House.
There has been a decline in the reputation of this institution in the past few years, for a variety of reasons—alleged misconduct on the part of various Members, and harsher party politics. The criticism of democratic parliamentarians has been reinforced by recent allegations made against Members of the European Parliament. That has undoubtedly led to a loss of public trust in Members of Parliament.
It is vital to the authority of this institution that we maintain the public perception of the integrity of Members of Parliament. It is from that perspective that I address the issue. That integrity and that authority would not be helped by tabloid headlines about freebies over the next few years if, as my right hon. Friend argues, the scheme is misused.
In my view, the comments of the Leader of the House were a touch disingenuous when she spoke about the way in which the motion was first presented to the House. It was presented initially for resolution at the end of business on a Friday. Fortunately, I saw it and objected to it. I thought that the matter ought to be debated so that it would be clear and above board. It was then presented in a mixture of other motions, and was promptly withdrawn when it was seen that my right hon. Friend and I were in the House and were ready to object to it.
The supposedly non-controversial measure, to which my right hon. Friend and I clearly objected, was put up again on Thursday 6 May—the day of the local government elections, when it might have been expected that someone might not be present to object to it. Although I was in east Yorkshire, my right hon. Friend was here and did object to it.
§ Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham)The right hon. Gentleman lost three Tory seats as a result.
§ Mr. DavisThat is an interesting deduction, but not one to which I would subscribe.
The purpose of the measure seems to hinge on the argument that the £250,000 or thereabouts set aside for the scheme as it currently exists has not been used, so we had better find a way of using it. Like my right hon. Friend, I think that if public money is not spent, the proper course is for it to be returned to the taxpayer, not for some other, possibly spurious use to be found for it.
417 My hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) asked about the take-up of the scheme. Over the course of seven years, the amount of money spent out of the putative £250,000 has been as low as £29,000 in one year and £33,000 in another. The average take-up has been £44,500 out of budget of £250,000. It has clearly not attracted the interest of the vast majority of hon. Members. That is fine—I have no objection to it—and it is for Members to make their own decision. I am in favour of less spending, but I am perfectly happy for them to visit those institutions to inform themselves of how they work. Before Labour Members intervene, I should say that, unfortunately, I made 100 visits in three years.
§ Mr. DavisNo; because of my previous duties as a Minister.
There are legitimate purposes for foreign travel. I sit on the Liaison Committee and regularly make judgments on Select Committee travel, and I apply to every one the test of whether it is worth while, and of value to the taxpayer, for a Select Committee to travel to Australia to consider the issue of missing children or whatever issue it may be. No doubt there may be a number of purposes for which it is legitimate for Members to travel, but finding something for Government Back Benchers to do on difficult days is not one of them, and they do not necessarily include visiting capitals that are in the sunshine and near beaches.
My amendment is aimed at making sure that the fund is used for its proper purpose and I have asked the House to amend the motion by adding the words:
a Member must submit in advance to the Fees Office a statement of the visit's purpose, location and duration and the persons or organisations to be met".Making a statement of the purpose in advance is a straightforward and reasonable condition to be put on any use of public money.
§ Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)If the right hon. Gentleman's amendment were passed, would not it achieve the additional purpose of fulfilling the intention of the amendment of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)? It would make the backdating inoperative because, by definition, no one could have made a submission before claiming the appropriate moneys.
§ Mr. DavisThe hon. Gentleman is entirely right. That would be an unintended, but extremely virtuous, outcome of the amendment. Anyone who had not submitted in advance his purpose for making a visit could not claim on the scheme, which is entirely sensible.
The House would be in an odd position if it did not refuse to give out taxpayers' money to a Member of Parliament to subsidise a trip to a foreign country 418 somewhere in Europe without his saying in advance where he was going, why he was making the visit and what the benefit to the taxpayer was.
§ Mrs. BeckettI have no particular objection to the right hon. Gentleman's amendment. If he is suggesting that he thinks that it would make the motion acceptable, I have no quarrel with it.
§ Mr. MacleanThat will not make the motion acceptable.
§ Mr. DavisI say to my right hon. Friend that I have to answer for myself; I say to the right hon. Lady that I am not sure what the convention is.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping)What is the right hon. Gentleman's opinion?
§ Mr. DavisI shall answer in a second. The Minister is not in opposition; he must get used to sitting on the Treasury Bench, and perhaps I will answer him in my own time. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister will earn his salary in due course and will not have to fill my post.
§ Mr. DavisYes, but no more.
The amendment would make the scheme acceptable. If the Government can accept it, I should be happy to support the case that has been made on the basis that it written into the motion.
§ Mrs. BeckettPerhaps I can provide further clarification for the right hon. Gentleman. The only reason why such a provision was not introduced initially by me is because there was a time, as he may know, when the Fees Office was reluctant to become involved—in any way, shape or form—in undertaking such a role. I understand that that reluctance no longer exists and I am perfectly happy to accept his amendment.
§ Mr. DavisI thank the right hon. Lady. The simple fact is that Members of Parliament fill in forms ad nauseam. I seem to spend vast quantities of my weekends writing down where I have been in my own constituency, so I certainly do not think that a condition as light as this could not be administered by the Fees Office and I am glad that it is willing to do so. Is the right hon. Lady accepting my amendment?
§ Mrs. Beckettindicated assent.
§ Mr. DavisIn that case, my speech has achieved its objective and, I hope, saved the taxpayer several hundred thousand pounds.
§ Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border)I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) can feel satisfied that his amendment has been accepted by the Government and that he now finds the motion acceptable, but I am afraid that I must apply a harsher test than that which the 419 Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee has applied. I have great respect for the work that he does as Chairman of that Committee, and I have no wish whatever to make a bid for his job, but I am afraid that I must adopt a tougher view of the expenditure of public money than the one which he has apparently adopted by graciously giving in to the Government tonight.
§ Mr. David DavisI object to the notion that I have given in to the Government. So far as I can see, the Government have given in to me.
§ Mr. MacleanWhatever this is, it is consensus and there is something rather vulgar about consensus when it involves the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and those on the Treasury Bench.
I listened with incredulity once again this week when the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) suggested that it is our duty to our constituents to travel to Rome in August or to Lisbon—[Interruption.] He did not say August.
§ Mr. SheermanI am concerned, and have always been concerned, only with European institutions, particularly those in Brussels. Any Member of the House who does not know how the European institutions work and how to take advantage of them for his constituents is not doing his job properly and is not serving his constituents to the fullest extent.
§ Mr. MacleanI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. It seems, therefore, that he is opposed to the extension of the scheme from Brussels and the European institutions to the other European capitals. I am sorry that I did him a disservice. I thought that he suggested in his intervention that it would be meritorious for us all to travel to those other European capitals and that it was our duty to our constituents to travel to Rome, Madrid, Athens and Paris—using taxpayers' money and at appropriate times of the year, of course—to study the national Parliaments and learn how they work so as to be better able to serve our constituents.
I must say that the hon. Gentleman is more persuasive than I am. I must admit that, using all my skills, I cannot sit opposite a constituent, look him or her in the eye and say, "I must have some of your money so that I can travel to Paris, Lisbon and Rome and to the other European Parliaments at your expense to make me a better MP so that I am more knowledgeable of the affairs of those countries and better able to do my duty to you." Who are we kidding?
A scheme has been proposed by the Government, but we can tell from its history that they know that it is bad politics. That is why they tried to sneak it in on numerous occasions after 10 o'clock at night and why they tried to bounce it through on the nod on Fridays, and on many other occasions. They know fine that it would not wash if the public—our constituents—found out that the House had extended an unused scheme for Members of Parliament to visit Brussels, Luxembourg and European institutions.
It seems that the scheme is used by less than a tenth of the Members of the House, but, because we are not working that scheme and are not taking up the amount of taxpayers' money that we have already allocated to 420 ourselves, we have decided to make the scheme sexier and make it more likely that we will soak up the taxpayers' money by adding some juicier and more exciting capitals.
§ Mrs. BeckettFirst, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the scheme is in no way in the interests of the Government, because Ministers are covered if they need to travel on parliamentary business.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman has not been in opposition very long—although I feel confident that, given the way that he is carrying on, he will get plenty of practice—so what I know from my experience as an Opposition Member may not have occurred to him. That is that there are occasions when hon. Members, of all parties, are engaged in business that means that it is beneficial, sensible and helpful to liaise with politicians in other member states.
Visits of various kinds are arranged for that purpose. In opposition, many Labour Members had to make such visits at their own expense. Those visits were not for pleasure, but were in pursuit of parliamentary business. On the basis of that experience, it seemed to me only sensible to propose an extension to the scheme.
Finally, and even more briefly, the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) have every right to object to the motion and to insist on it being debated. However, the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the reputation of Parliament. Nothing does more harm to that than the continued assertion by Members of Parliament that every foreign trip is a jaunt. He is kidding himself if he thinks that the public do not make a distinction between the sort of cases that he describes and worthwhile trips by Select Committees.
§ Mr. MacleanI am grateful for that long exposition by the right hon. Lady. However, I have been in opposition for the same number of days as she has been in government. One day, perhaps, we shall both be better at our respective roles.
Of course there is no advantage to Ministers in the proposal, but there certainly is to Government Back Benchers, that vast army of the bored unemployed. That army is not so vast tonight, of course, because so many Labour Members have pressing business in their constituencies. However, it is in the Government's interest that that vast army should be out of the House when contentious debates are coming up, whether they be on the Immigration and Asylum Bill, or on cutting welfare benefits or disability benefits. Those contentious debates may well turn out to be very convenient moments for Government Back Benchers to acquaint themselves with the workings of the Athens Parliament.
§ Mr. SheermanIt dismays many Government Members—and some Opposition Members too—when the right hon. Gentleman continually makes assertions that lower the reputation for integrity of Members of the House. I find it offensive. The right hon. Gentleman rejects even the notion that, in some senses, we are in a European federal state, and he believes that we should not travel throughout Europe. Some people do not like what 421 they call the F word, but I find it offensive that the right hon. Gentleman considers that those who believe in a European democracy that works only do so for a free trip.
§ Mr. MacleanI do not believe that the trips are free. They are free for Members of Parliament, but they are paid for by our constituents. What is the justification for that?
Of course the Leader of the House is right to say that Ministers gain no advantage through the proposal, and that not every foreign trip is a jaunt. When the Deputy Prime Minister was in India, Mauritius and other places at Easter or during the Budget, we all know that that was not a jaunt. Of course not: the scuba diving was essential to his understanding of the conditions in those countries, which he clearly intended to adopt in his integrated transport policy for this country. I look forward to the scuba diving aspect being implemented in some way in Hull, or Huddersfield, or elsewhere.
Of course, Ministers need some recreation time on foreign trips, which involve a lot of hard work, as I know for a fact. If one does not take control of the programme, the embassy will have one working from 4 o'clock in the morning until midnight. 1 have no complaint about the work that Ministers do, but no Back Bencher should ever pretend that all foreign trips are arduous and tough. That is not the case. We can make them arduous if we wish, but there is no need for the money that has not been taken up to be soaked up by being spread across other institutions in Europe.
The justification for the proposal is to soak up the money in that way. It is not that there has suddenly emerged a pressing need to learn about the workings of Parliaments in other European countries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) tabled an amendment about visiting NATO countries. I shall not speak to it as it was not selected, but it is equally valid. Given that the Government are straining the special relationship between Britain and Washington—the Foreign Secretary is wrecking it daily—it may be more important for Members of Parliament to visit Washington to repair the damage. However, if the Government can justify trips to Lisbon, Madrid, Athens and Rome, it is equally meritorious to visit the capitals of our NATO allies. The point is that I do not see any need for visits by Back Bench Members to other European capitals to be funded at the taxpayer's expense.
I support the view advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, even though the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden has been accepted by the Government. That amendment merely puts some appropriate accountancy ethics into a system that is fundamentally wrong. I hope that I will have an opportunity to oppose the principle behind the proposal, even though that amendment has been accepted.
§ Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire)I shall intervene briefly, as so far the debate has featured contributions from individual Opposition Back Benchers. We on the Opposition Front Bench, who have responsibility for monitoring and scrutinising legislation, have a slightly different perspective.
422 The Conservative party does not have a view on this matter, and we are on a free vote. My right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), and for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) are perfectly entitled to insist that matters such as this are debated in the House. I want to put in on record that I have never been on a Select Committee visit overseas, but I have used this scheme. About a year ago, right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Foreign Secretary, and I went to Brussels. We had some very useful visits and worked quite hard.
I do not follow the logic, however, that the scheme should be scrapped. Given that more and more legislation comes from Europe, it is important for Opposition Front Benchers to maintain contacts with European institutions, so I do not think that scrapping the scheme would be right.
I have no difficulty with the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden. When I used the scheme, I had to state where I was going and why, so the Fees Office has some capacity to monitor the scheme. It is within the experience of many hon. Members that the Fees Office has the capacity to interrogate us about the purpose of telephone calls to America. That means that it has some capacity to track down what we get up to in other countries.
I was delighted to hear that the Leader of the House finds amendment (k) acceptable. If that is the case, I shall be happy to support the motion, as amended.
§ Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham)I confess that I may be the onlie begetter of this proposal. I raised in opposition, and again as a Government Back Bencher, the idea that there should be stronger relations between the House of Commons and other national Parliaments. When I was elected five years ago, I was surprised to discover that one could not make a telephone call to Europe, or send a letter there, or discharge one's duties to constituents if that involved going to Europe.
Frankly, tonight I would rather be in Barcelona, but as soon as the debate ends I must change into a dinner jacket and repair to the German embassy for a dinner in honour of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), that well-known Conservative hero. As a Back Bencher, I feel a bit nervous about taking on three Conservative Privy Councillors opposed to the proposal.
§ Mr. David DavisOnly two.
§ Mr. MacShaneI am told that the number is down to two. We are seeing a bit of a split. This is the beginning of big-tent politics—Patten Tuesday, Goodlad and Davis today. Things are moving forward as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) comes on board with the Government side.
A couple of points are worth making. I asked the House of Commons Library how much it costs per hour to run this place. The answer is £150,000. We have already spent a good part of that because the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Haltemprice and Howden objected to this proposal, which we flagged up in opposition and in government as an issue that 423 needed to be considered. The right hon. Gentlemen who complain that we should not spend taxpayers' money have turned the tap on full in the past 40 minutes.
A moment ago we voted not to decrease public expenditure by charging foreign visitors to come to the House of Commons in the summer. Hon. Members have a right to do that, but they then have no right to say that they are defenders of the public purse. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, we are not increasing the vote of the House—it is not Government money—by a single penny.
I should have thought that this proposal would appeal to the more Europhobe Conservative Members. They should endorse a measure that would increase the connections and relationships between the national Parliaments of Europe.
§ Mr. DavisI want to correct the hon. Gentleman, because he is misquoting his Front-Bench colleagues. They said that no more money would be allocated, which is not the same as saying that no more money would be spent. In the past seven years, the amount allocated has been £250,000 a year, whereas the amount spent has been £44,000 a year. If the scheme succeeds in its stated intent, the amount spent will increase to £0250,000, so spending will increase. We should not be under that misapprehension.
§ Mr. MacShaneThat depends on the take-up, and the evidence is that, under the existing scheme, a maximum of between 70 and 100 hon. Members take it up. That money has been voted by Parliament, so the full amount could be spent. It has not been spent, and this scheme will not increase that voted expenditure by a single penny. I would be interested to know, as someone who likes to count the figures, where the non-spent money goes. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden is the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, so perhaps he will look into that.
Each hon. Member can, if he so chooses, go up and down to his constituency once, twice, three or four times a day travelling first class or claiming mileage. There is no examination of how that money is spent. If we want to represent this Parliament's interests in other national Parliaments or to represent our constituents' interests abroad—a large number of people work in Europe and maintain an address in this country, and more than half our trade is with European Union countries—it is absurd to suggest that such travel should be stopped.
Alternatively, we could find other sources of funding for these trips. We could phone up the owner of Harrods and ask for a weekend in the Ritz. We could go on other junkets and do far more damage to the good name of the House. Unless we found an external source to pay for such trips, they could not take place.
I have no shame in arguing that case. I am grateful that my colleagues on the Front Bench have accepted the excellent suggestion of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. I think that we should be upfront, and that this information should be made public. That is far better than using alternative sources of money.
§ Mr. MacleanIf the hon. Gentleman thinks that we should be upfront, would it be acceptable for a list to be published each year stating where each Member went, the cost of the trip and what they did?
§ Mr. MacShaneI would have no problem with that. If hon. Members provide a full record, all that information 424 is published in the Register of Members' Interests. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said that, as a Minister, he went to Europe 100 times.
§ Mr. MacShaneHe went 100 times to Brussels. I thought that he meant that he had made 100 trips to other European capitals while serving as a Minister. In The Guardian today, the right hon. Gentleman, speaking as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said:
It is important that members of select committees should travel abroad so that Parliament is kept informed.The article says that the total bill is £450,000, which is 10 times what is spent at the moment on the measure that we are discussing. I am not a member of a Select Committee or a right hon. Gentleman, and I find it slightly offensive that Ministers can travel to Europe as often as they want, and that members of Select Committees can spend £500,000 of taxpayers' money as and when they please. There is one difference. The right hon. Gentleman said:I look at the costs against the cost of equivalent ministerial trips—MPs travel club class while ministers travel first class.I am happy to table a third amendment requiring them to travel economy class, if that helps to win support.
§ Mr. DavisIt would certainly help to win my support. The hon. Gentleman shows what is wrong with the thought processes behind the measure. He seems to see this as a division of spoils. I did not read the article from which he is quoting, but I told the journalist that what matters is that taxpayers benefit from taxpayers' money—full stop; nothing else. If the hon. Gentleman thinks of this as a division of spoils between Front Benchers and Back Benchers, that is entirely the wrong approach. The right approach is to ask who pays for it and who gains from it. It should be the taxpayer who gains from it, not Members of Parliament.
§ Mr. MacShaneOne bitter lesson that we have learned under new Labour is not to give interviews to journalists from The Guardian. The right hon. Gentleman might follow that advice. He is saying that paid trips are okay for Ministers and for members of Select Committees, but Back Benchers can get stuffed. I speak for Back Benchers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I speak for some of them, and I speak for members of the Opposition Front Bench, for members of the Government and for the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. I hope that this measure will go through.
§ Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington)I went to Europe under this arrangement three years ago during an argument over the future of the Campbell Soups factory in my constituency. I talked to an official, and when I came back to the United Kingdom I briefed the GMB union on what I had learned. The union brought a series of actions and the Campbell Soups company had to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds in compensation. That shows how effectively the scheme works. That was achieved because I managed to track down a Commission official who knew all about an obscure area of European law.
§ Mr. MacShaneI am grateful for that practical example of how the scheme can work. I believe that it 425 will enhance the ability of hon. Members to discharge their duties, and it will bring the national Parliaments of the European Union a bit closer together. I do not believe that the taxpayers—our voters—will object to this amount of money being spent. I commend this motion to the House, and I hope that it is passed, as amended.
§ Amendment proposed: (k), in line 16, at end insert
§ '(1A) a Member must submit in advance to the Fees Office a statement of the visit's purpose, location and duration and the persons or organisations to be met.—[Mr. David Davis.]
§ Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to.
§ Main Question, as amended, put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 5.
426| Division No. 200] | [7.59 pm |
| AYES | |
| Allan, Richard | Fearn, Ronnie |
| Ancram, Rt Hon Michael | Gapes, Mike |
| Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) | Garnier, Edward |
| Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James | George, Bruce (Walsall S) |
| Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy | Gibson, Dr Ian |
| Barnes, Harry | Gilroy, Mrs Linda |
| Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret | Gorrie, Donald |
| Begg, Miss Anne | Harris, Dr Evan |
| Beggs, Roy | Heald, Oliver |
| Beth, Rt Hon A J | Healey, John |
| Bennett, Andrew F | Heath, David (Somerton & Frome) |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Henderson, Ivan (Harwich) |
| Betts, Clive | Howells, Dr Kim |
| Boswell, Tim | Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) |
| Bradley, Keith (Withington) | Jamieson, David |
| Brake, Tom | Johnson, Miss Melanie |
| Burnett, John | (Welwyn Hatfield) |
| Burstow, Paul | Jones, Ms Jenny |
| Caborn, Rt Hon Richard | (Wolverh'ton SW) |
| Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies | Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth) |
| (NE Fife) | Key, Robert |
| Campbell–Savours, Dale | King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth) |
| Caplin, Ivor | Laing, Mrs Eleanor |
| Chapman, Ben (Wirral S) | Lansley, Andrew |
| Chidgey, David | Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen |
| Coffey, Ms Ann | Linton, Martin |
| Cohen, Harry | Love, Andrew |
| Collins, Tim | McIntosh, Miss Anne |
| Connarty, Michael | McIsaac, Shona |
| Cormack, Sir Patrick | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Cotter, Brian | McNamara, Kevin |
| Cousins, Jim | McNulty, Tony |
| Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice) | MacShane, Denis |
| & Howden) | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Dowd, Jim | Maxton, John |
| Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Merron, Gillian |
| Etherington, Bill | Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute) |
| Moore, Michael | Stunell, Andrew |
| Moran, Ms Margaret | Syms, Robert |
| O'Brien, Mike (N Warks) | Taylor, John (Solihull) |
| Olner, Bill | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Ottaway, Richard | Tipping, Paddy |
| Page, Richard | Tonge, Dr Jenny |
| Pike, Peter L | Twigg, Stephen (Enfield) |
| Pope, Greg | Tyler, Paul |
| Pound, Stephen | Tyrie, Andrew |
| Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E) | Vaz, Keith |
| Prior, David | Vis, Dr Rudi |
| Rendel, David | Ward, Ms Claire |
| Rowlands, Ted | Webb, Steve |
| Russell, Bob (Colchester) | Whittingdale, John |
| Ryan, Ms Joan | Willis, Phil |
| Savidge, Malcolm | Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C) |
| Sedgemore, Brian | Young, Rt Hon Sir George |
| Shaw, Jonathan | |
| Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Starkey, Dr Phyllis | Mr. David Hanson and |
| Steen, Anthony | Mr. Keith Hill. |
| NOES | |
| Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E) | Viggers, Peter |
| Randall, John | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Sanders, Adrian | Mr. Eric Forth and |
| Swayne, Desmond | Mr. David Maclean. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Resolved,
§ That the Resolution of 6th December 1991 relating to travel by Members to European Community Institutions be rescinded.
§ That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made as from 1st April 1999 for reimbursing Members in respect of the cost of travelling on parliamentary duties between the United Kingdom and any European Union institution in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg or the national parliament of another European Union member state and any additional expenses necessarily incurred in such travelling, subject to the limit that
§ (1) the amount payable to a Member in any year, beginning with 1st April, shall not exceed the aggregate of—
- (a) the cost of a return business class airfare for the journey on the assumption that the journey begins and ends at a London airport and that the destination is any of the three cities mentioned above or the location of the national parliament of a European Union member state; and
- (b) twice the corresponding civil service class A standard subsistence rate for the time being in operation; and
§ (1A)a Member must submit in advance to the Fees Office a statement of the visit's purpose, location and duration and the persons or organisations to be met; and
§ (2) expenditure in pursuance of this Resolution within financial year 1999–2000 shall not exceed the total currently planned for expenditure on travel by Members to European Union institutions within that year.