HC Deb 12 July 1976 vol 915 cc32-9
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the pay and allowances of Members of Parliament.

There has been no increase in Members' pay since 13th June last year. The maximum increase permitted under the current round of the pay policy is £6 a week, and the Government now propose that the Member's rate of £5,750 should be increased by that amount from the 13th of last month. I will table the necessary motion at an early date. The rate for pension purposes will remain £8,000.

The £8,500 upper limit for any increase must also apply as required by the pay policy. Members who have earnings from other sources which, together with the parliamentary salary and any London supplement, take their total earnings to £8,500 or more are not eligible under the policy to receive the £6 supplement and they will, therefore, be asked to forgo it in full. In borderline cases the £6 will need to be restricted so that total earnings do not rise above £8,500.

The £8,500 limit means that Ministers in this House will not qualify for the supplement, but unless they have other earnings which take them beyond the limit, junior Government and Opposition Whips will be entitled to it.

Draft Orders in Council under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 will be tabled which will enable Ministers and Office Holders in another place to receive a supplement to their present salaries, including London supplement, where they fall below the £8,500 limit, subject to the same proviso about any other earnings also being taken into account.

The Government will also put before the House a motion that the secretarial allowance should be increased from 13th June last from its present annual maximum of £3,200 to enable Members to increase their secretaries' salary within the policy by up to £6 a week for full-time assistance and to claim the appropriate reimbursement. Where the services of a secretary are shared, any maximum increase of £6 a week should be suitably apportioned among Members.

I should also inform the House that the Prime Minister has received the second part of the Review Body's Report dealing with ministerial salaries, Members' pensions and some minor matters affecting Members' allowances and facilities. The Report is the second in the series which was commissioned by the Government in January 1975, well before the present pay policy was introduced. It is being printed and will be presented to the House as soon as possible. It recommends substantial increases in ministerial salaries and some improvements in the parliamentary pensions scheme. These recommendations cannot be implemented under the current incomes policy. The Government do not propose to take any further action on the Report until incomes policy permits, and I should make it clear that the Government are in no way committed to implementing these recommendations.

Mr. Peyton

The right hon. Gentleman's statement raises two quite important and somewhat novel questions. First, some Members will now be paid at different rates for doing the same job, and this will arise for purely outside considerations unrelated to the amount of work done here. Does the right hon. Gentleman see this as going on indefinitely?

Second, although Ministers may presently be wallowing in a slough of disregard, it seems dangerous none the less that Ministers should be consistently underpaid, since this does not attract the necessary talent to ministerial office. Further, the right hon. Gentleman's statement made at least the pretence of dealing with the salaries of Members of Parliament, and I do not understand why it was thought right to drag in by the heels the salaries of Ministers in another place. I suppose that it was just for convenience. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that.

Finally, what are the right hon. Gentleman's intentions regarding the Review Body, since it would be a foolish exercise to ask distinguished and busy people to churn out recommendations which the Government then felt obliged to ignore?

Mr. Foot

It is true that the proposals which the Government have made introduce a differential as between different Members of Parliament, but this is inevitable if we are to abide by the £8,500 limit and still make the increase which we propose to make for the majority of Members—and certainly for those who need it most. It does not mean that we are suggesting that this should in any way be a permanent feature. That will, of course, be a matter for the House to consider when incomes policy restrictions do not affect the issue.

On the question regarding Ministers' salaries and the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that Ministers should be paid more, I can only quote what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said the other day—Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes—and no one is to be more feared than the right hon. Gentleman in such a respect. As for why we have dragged in, as the right hon. Gentleman puts it, Members of another place, I think that Ministers in the other place are Members of Parliament, and they should be properly dealt with under our proposals.

With regard to the Review Body, it is true that it is an eminent body, and certainly we should take account of what it recommends. I am sure that the House will wish to pass its judgment on what the Review Body says when it is published, but I thought it only fair to make the matter clear to the House in order that no one should be disappointed later in finding that the Government did not propose to breach the pay policy for the benefit of Ministers.

Mr. Peyton

I am sure that Ministers in another place will be gratified to find that, of all people, the right hon. Gentleman describes them as Members of Parliament.

Mr. English

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that under the pay policies of the relevant years we should from the 13th of last month be entitled to £8,312 per annum? Secondly, will he confirm that his application of the pay increase of £6 a week to us will be applied in the same way to the Civil Service so that civil servants also will not get the £6 a week attributed to their pay for pension purposes—which, if that be so, would be a breach of agreements with the Civil Service?

Finally, will my right hon. Friend explain which year we are supposed to take for the assessment of outside earnings? As he should well know, income from Press and television, for example, is uncertain. Does he mean last year, or will he say how it will work?

Mr. Foot

On the last question, I think that the common sense of the matter is that it will have to be governed by the amounts received this year, the same period as is governed by the £6 limit itself. I should have thought that that was a reasonable proposition. Indeed, it is not possible to apply it in any other way.

In response to my hon. Friend's second question, I do not believe that there is any need for me to make a statement on Civil Service payments arising out the statement which I have just made to the House.

Mr. English

On the same conditions?

Mr. Foot

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but I do not wish to make any statement about Civil Service pay on this basis. What we are doing is carrying out our proposals ahead of what has sometimes been supposed. Assistant Secretaries in the Civil Service have received no increase under the current pay round, but we thought it right that we should proceed with the £6 increase where it applied in the House now.

My hon. Friend's first question raises a matter which was fully debated last year, and I have nothing to add to what was said by the Government then.

Mr. Freud

We feel that it ill becomes us to be party to legislation for our own specific benefit, especially when we are exhorting others to show moderation. I accept that we may be entitled to £6 a week extra. I should like to know how many people without our unique ability to bend the law have been unable to obtain this increase. Finally, what steps will the Leader of the House take to see that the £6 a week increase will actually go to the secretarial staff?

Mr. English

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The effect of the statement is to distinguish between Members, and I am sure that you will therefore agree that Members who have an interest should declare it.

Mr. Speaker

Order. What is clear to me is that I do not have an interest.

Mr. Foot

I can only confirm your judgment, Mr. Sneaker. I assure the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) that there is no question of bending the rules in any sense whatever to suit Members of the House. What we have sought to do in this arrangement is to carry out what I regard as perfectly justified—that is, that both Members and secretaries entitled to the £6 should get it, but at the same time we had to ensure that we did not breach the £8,500 limit, which was in the White Paper approved by the House and which is being applied in the general incomes policy. We have sought to do that in a manner which causes the least difficulty in its application, and I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides would welcome the proposal in that light.

Mr. Mellish

Will my right hon. Friend take it that most of us on both sides, I believe, will accept his proposal and will not quarrel with it at all? We have always had differentials in the House in as much as some Members have earned a great deal more than others—good luck to them, and I do not complain about that. My right hon. Friend is right to say that when increases come along they should be given at the bottom end of the scale. That is what it was all about, and that is right.

However, I have a question to put to my right hon. Friend regarding the Boyle Report. This is a matter which many of us are concerned about, and it raises an important issue with regard to pensions. Of course, I have not seen the Report, but I greatly hope that it will not be bypassed in this respect, because there has been an outstanding anomaly here for a long time, whatever view one may take about increases in salary for Members of Parliament or Ministers. My right hon. Friend will understand that the right time never comes. We are all sick of this business, and I do not know why these things cannot be fixed and automatic. However, on the pensions side, will my right hon. Friend make sure that the question is not bypassed?

Mr. Foot

It is not a question of bypassing it. The Top Salaries Review Body Report will be published. The House will then judge the different proposals in that Report and will take account of what the Report says. That does not mean that the House or the Government will automatically accept what is said on that subject or any other. I wish to emphasise—I do not want anybody to be misled—that we do not propose to depart from the incomes policy in applying proposals when we receive that Report.

Mr. du Cann

While recognising the difficulty of the present situation, I support most strongly what was said by the former Government Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). Will the Leader of the House reconsider what I understand has been his decision to do nothing about the pensions of former Members of this House? If ever any group of persons deserves to be considered, it is those former Members. Many of them are suffering hardship as a result of the fact that they have not been fairly treated in the past.

On the subject of the decision in regard to Ministers, we are now seeing a shabby habit in our national affairs of awarding to those who in any circumstances are accepting responsibility less than their deserved norm.

Mr. Foot

On the first point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I appreciate what he said, in echoing in turn what was said on that aspect by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). I recognise the strong feelings on that subject. I cannot do any more than to ask the House to wait and see what the Review Body says on the subject.

On the topic of Ministers, I fully understand, and indeed welcome, the right hon. Gentleman's eagerness to see Ministers paid their deserts, but in my opinion it would be shabby if the Government were to apply a different rule to Ministers from that which they seek to apply to the rest of the nation. We are seeking to apply the same rules in this House as we seek to apply to people throughout the country. I only wish that everybody else would do the same.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

I shall call only two more hon. Members on this statement because there are two further statements to come.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

May I support what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish)? Do I understand that the Leader of the House and indeed the Government have seen the Boyle Report and have come to the conclusion that they will not implement it without waiting for the view of the House upon that Report? If the House debates that Report and comes to a decision upon it, will the Government, if that is the will of the House, reconsider implementing its recommendations?

Mr. Foot

If it is the will of the House that any particular item, or the whole of the Boyle Report, should be accepted, of course the Government will have to accept that decision. We have seen the Boyle Report, we have examined it, but there are still decisions to be made upon it. I thought that it was only right not to raise false expectations and to tell the House that we are not prepared on that or on other matters to depart from the rules laid down in incomes policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) rightly said, it is the House of Commons that reaches the final decision on all these matters.

Mr. Hordern

As the Leader of the House has referred to the pensions of Members of Parliament who have retired, what particular recommendations do the Government intend to make to assist former Members of Parliament who have retired or who were defeated in the polls in 1964 and who, in present circumstances, are not entitled to a pension of any sort? Can the right hon. Gentleman outline any Government proposals to cover that category of Member?

Mr. Foot

I understand the strength of feeling on this subject. The hon. Gentleman is one among several Members who have raised this matter with me. However, I must ask the House to see what the Review Body says before we pass judgment.