§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short)The Government have recently considered the matter of Members' remuneration, in response to many representations to me, and to my predecessor, from both sides of the House. The present levels of parliamentary salary and allowances were fixed nearly two-and-a-half years ago on 1st January 1972 following the report on Ministers' and MPs' remuneration made by the Top Salaries Review Body under the chairmanship of Lord Boyle.
The Review Body said that it considered that there should be a major comprehensive review at intervals which would correspond roughly to once in the lifetime of each parliament of normal length, although it did not rule out the possibility of interim reviews at shorter intervals.
The Government do not feel that it would be right at the present time to review the level of Ministers' and Members' salaries as these would more properly form part of a major review. But, on the other hand, there is no doubt that the value of the various allowances which Members may draw to help them defray the necessary expenses they incur in the course of their parliamentary duties has fallen to a level which is causing serious difficulties for many Members. I have in mind the secretarial allowance, the motor mileage allowance, London allowance, and the allowance which covers the additional cost of overnight stays away from home.
The Government therefore intend to invite the Review Body to undertake an early review of the rates of these various allowances and to recommend the levels to which they should be increased. It is not intended to ask the Review Body on this occasion to review or advise on the basis of payment of the allowances. I expect that a limited review of this nature would not take too long to complete.
§ Mr. PriorThe right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the greatly increased cost in recent years of the necessary expenses that Members have to 195 incur. We entirely agree that a review by the Boyle Committee is necessary. Will he consider whether Members' pensions should be included in the number of refer-neces which he is to make?
There is a growing feeling in the House that arranging a review once every four years or so does not meet the wishes of the House and that it is not such a dignified method of carrying out the changes as we would wish. Will the right hon. Gentleman have further thoughts on the automaticity of reviewing both Members' salaries and Members' allowances? I believe that many hon. Members now take the view that it would be far better if there were a reasonable scale rather than a review every four years or so. I know that that view does not enjoy Wholehearted support but that is the growing mood of hon. Members.
§ Mr. ShortI have a great deal of sympathy with the two matters that the right hon. Gentleman has raised about pensions and the review of salaries during the life of one parliament. I shall certainly consider those matters and I shall be happy to discuss them with right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House.
§ Mr. EnglishIs my right hon. Friend aware that although we are grateful for the prospect of an increase, the matter raised by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) is one that perhaps could be initiated by the Boyle Committee after it has considered the interim review so that in a future Parliament the committee could report upon the matter early instead of late?
§ Mr. ShortI shall consider an automatic review of salaries when we consider the whole question of salaries, which will take place shortly.
§ Dr. WinstanleyIs it not time that we did away with the system whereby many hon. Members subsidise their work here with their earnings from outside? Is it not precisely the possibility of an hon. Member's undue financial dependence on his outside earnings which constitutes a possible threat to his freedom of action as a Member? Should not we deal urgently with the situation in which many hon. Members' secretaries are employed in the House on terms and conditions which would not be tolerated outside?
§ Mr. ShortThe debate which we shall have tomorrow will be a proper occasion on which to deploy the hon. Gentleman's first point. There is a great deal of support for the hon. Gentleman's second point, and it is the sort of matter which we shall consider when we have a comprehensive review, when we can consider the whole basis of personal allowances.
§ Mr. AtkinsonIs my right hon. Friend aware that under the present arrangements there are London Members who are not entitled to any of the allowances that he has mentioned and who do not receive a penny from any of the sources which he has mentioned? Will the review include the question whether London Members should have an entitlement to some expenses and allowances rather than talking about the total amount of money? Can we have a guarantee that all London Members will have an entitlement to the allowances to which he has referred?
§ Mr. ShortMy hon. Friend is in the unfortunate position of falling between two stools. He is not alone, but very nearly alone. I am trying to find a solution to this problem. I do not want to impede this inquiry, which Lord Boyle has promised to carry out very quickly, by asking him to look at this problem. If it is possible to find a solution before the comprehensive review, I will certainly find it. The major difficulty is that if we change the boundary we then take the other allowance away from some other hon. Members. This is a difficulty, but we will try to find a solution. If we cannot I will certainly give an undertaking that it will form part of the comprehensive review which is to take place before long.
§ Mr. MaudeDoes the right hon. Gentleman recognise that not everyone in the House, and certainly not everyone in the country, believes that Members of Parliament should be automatically insulated from the effects of inflation? Is he aware that there would be considerable opposition to the idea of incorporating a cost-of-living increase in Members' salaries? On the other hand, when it comes to the allowances, may I ask him to recognise that when the secretarial allowance, for example, falls behind the rising cost of living, this affects not just Members of Parliament but their secretaries? Does he appreciate that this is 197 something which most people would understand is not just a selfish attempt by Members of Parliament to insulate themselves against the effects of inflation, for which they are partly responsible?
§ Mr. ShortI feel sure that the public will understand this and support this review. Certainly all the allowances have fallen well behind, while the salary levels for secretaries have risen. The travel allowance is now completely out of date. I realise that there are two points of view about Members' salaries. It is always difficult to choose the right moment in such a matter. There never is a right moment. There are always arguments against doing anything. I believe that there is a case for looking at the point put by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft about trying to ensure in some way or other that there is an automatic review from time to time of Members' salaries.
§ Mr. StraussWhile there may not be a strong case for considering increases in Members' pensions in view of the considerable improvement that has recently taken place, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that there is a strong case for looking into the present scale of pensions for Members' widows? Will he place this subject high on the agenda of the Review Committee's programme?
§ Mr. ShortThe two subjects are tied together because the size of the widow's pension depends upon the size of the Member's pension. If we look at pensions generally, this will be one of the points to be examined.
§ Mr. TugendhatDoes the right hon. Gentleman accept that the great majority of recent entrants to this House will very much agree with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) about the necessity of placing parliamentary salaries 198 upon a proper footing and making sure that they rise more or less in step with those of comparable sections of the community? Does he not also agree that since we are now tackling the whole question of Members' outside interests, we must look at salaries in that context and recognise that Parliament is an infinitely more time-consuming affair than it used to be?
§ Mr. ShortWhat the House is likely to do tomorrow will make this all the more urgent. I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman has said about the point raised by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft. There is a great deal to be said for an automatic review by a completely independent outside body.
§ Mr. PrescottIs my right hon. Friend aware of the feeling among many hon. Members that the allowance system, particularly as it applies to secretarial work, is totally unsatisfactory? Is he aware that many of us are strongly of the opinion that permanent secretarial assistance should be provided by this House and not through the allowance system? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that, while we realise that there are difficulties, we believe that they could be overcome and that if they were we would then not have to go through this process of asking for increases in the allowances? Does my right hon. Friend realise that we want secretarial help which is guaranteed proper wages by the House?
§ Mr. ShortI imagine that that arrangement would be acceptable to a great many hon. Members. Equally, it would not be acceptable to a great many others who like to employ their own secretaries. I should be happy to receive the views of hon. and right hon. Members on this matter over the next few months, before we have a comprehensive view. The present review is a limited and urgent one on allowances, which I hope Lord Boyle will carry out quickly.