HC Deb 17 July 1978 vol 954 cc49-88

Lords amendment: No. 63, in page 15, line 14, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("Secretary of State").

4.26 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Milan)

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker

With this we are to take Lords amendments nos. 64 to 68.

Mr. Milan

This group of amendments deals with clause 31, which deals with the remuneration of Members of the Scottish Assembly as well as the remuneration of the Scottish Secretaries and the assistants to Scottish Secretaries. At the moment the clause provides that these are matters to be decided by the Assembly itself, although in the first instance, before it is able to make a determination—really, before the Assembly is elected—a determination will be made by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

This group of amendments would provide that the Secretary of State should fix by order the salaries and allowances of Assembly Members, Scottish Secretaries and their assistants, and also pensions, gratuities, allowances and the rest. I say on behalf of the Government that we could not accept an amendment of this nature because we believe that these are matters which ought to be decided by the Assembly itself.

If I am asked, as I dare say I shall be in the course of this debate, what the appropriate level of salaries of Members of the Assembly should be, I would have to say that that can be decided only in relation to a number of factors, such as the work load of the Assembly Members and Scottish Secretaries, the hours that the Assembly may decide that it ought to sit and the general arrange ments which the Assembly will make for conducting its own affairs. In the meantime, it is impossible to take an absolutely firm view of these matters. But what I am absolutely firm about is that the Assembly should have as much freedom as possible in deciding its procedures and other operational matters. In accordance with that policy, the level of salaries and allowances should also be left to the Assembly to determine in the light of its own appraisal of these factors.

If we were to say that these were matters which the Assembly could not be trusted to decide for itself, we should be expressing in the Bill a considerable and completely unjustified distrust of the Assembly. Of course, under the Bill the Assembly will have responsibility for a wide range of important matters affecting Scotland. It seems to me to be absurd to give the Assembly that wide range of matters and at the same time say to it that it would not be competent to decide its own level of salaries and allowances. On principle, that would be wrong.

In any case, as we know from our own experience in this place—I do not think that in the past Governments have always been particularly clever in fixing the salaries of Members of Parliament—public opinion plays a considerable part in determining these matters, and in determining the view which the Government, or in this case the Assembly Executive, take of these particular matters.

Mr. Russell Johnston (Inverness)

Is it not more accurate to say that public opinion plays the part that the House allows it to play and plays the role that we think it has?

Mr. Milan

I do not disagree with that, but it is not inconsistent with what I have just said. I said that public opinion plays a role—a perfectly legitimate role—but I do not think that that should be the only consideration. I do not think that a particular interpretation of public opinion at any time should be the only determining factor in these matters.

However, we know from our experience that public opinion plays a role and it will certainly play a role in determining the salaries of the Members of the Assembly because when the Assembly comes to decide these matters it will, in addition to providing justice for its Members, have very closely in mind the general atmosphere in which decisions are being taken and it will bear in mind that it will have to do something which is generally accaptable to public opinion in Scotland.

These are matters which I think the Assembly is perfectly competent to decide for itself and it is right that it should decide them for itself. I have no reason to believe other than that the Assembly will take a reasonable and practical view of the remuneration that its Members should receive for the responsibilities they discharge in the Assembly.

Miss Harvie Anderson (Renfrewshire, East)

Is there not a crucial distinction which the right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned, namely, that if the Assembly is to fix its own remuneration it will do that out of moneys not raised by itself but with moneys that come from this place?

Mr. Millan

We are discussing all sorts of decisions about the spending of money, and I am not sure what the special characteristics of this decision are which would justify our taking it out of the hands of the Assembly and putting it into the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland. These are matters which the Assembly is perfectly entitled to decide and perfectly capable of deciding for itself.

If it were desired to have an unnecessary source of conflict between the Assembly, on the one hand, and the Westminster Government, on the other hand, that could be achieved by accepting these amendments and taking this rather sensitive decision away from the Assembly and putting it into the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Having said that, however, I recognise that we shall have to set the initial salaries, and that will have to be done in time for the first elections so that it is a matter which is known by the candidates and everyone else involved in the first elections to the Assembly. The Bill already provides for the Secretary of State to decide these matters by direction. I simply say that that is put into the Bill at present as a purely practical and temporary arrangement.

It will be possible for the Assembly to alter the salaries and allowances so determined very quickly in its life. It will have to decide for itself whether it will be convenient or politic to do that, but the arrangement written into clause 31(2) is a strictly temporary one which will last only as long as the Assembly does not make its own determination of salaries. How long that period will be, as I say, is in the hands of the Assembly itself.

I believe that what was in the Bill when it went to the other place was right and that to accept these amendments, which would take the decision out of the hands of the Assembly and put it into the hands of the Secretary of State, would be wrong in principle and would have very undesirable practical implications. For the reasons that I have outlined, I invite the House to disagree with the Lords in this amendment and those following upon it.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher (Edinburgh, North)

I am very disappointed with the Secretary of State's speech and his desire to stick to the Bill as it was. It is hard to believe that he has really thought out the consequences of the concept that the Assembly itself should fix the remuneration of its Members.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that it would be a source of conflict if this House were to fix the salaries and allowances of Members of the Assembly. I suggest that it would be very much a source of conflict if the Assembly were left to its own devices in the matter.

In supporting the Lords amendments I wish to say that we have no desire to be mean or petty in prescribing the arrangements for the remuneration of Members of the Assembly and the Scottish Executive. We support the amendments because we believe that the House would wish to be realistic and take account of two important factors. The first, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson), is that the Assembly itself will not be responsible for raising any revenue. The second, which was mentioned by the Secretary of State, is the work load of the Assembly. We must take that into account if we are to consider the remuneration of Assemblymen. The Secretary of State agreed that this is the critical factor, but he added that it was too early to say what the work load might be.

What shall we learn in the next few months that we have not learnt in the past two years about the Assembly's functions, its role and its work load? The Government's defence of the Bill as it stands revolves around the argument that the Assembly should be free, in the Secretary of State's words, to suit itself in these matters, in the same way as the salaries of Westminster Members is a matter for this House. A crucial distinction is that this House also has the extremely unpopular task of raising the revenue to pay for those salaries, while the Assembly will be just another organisation spending public funds.

I know that the few Members of the House who passionately support the Assembly do not like it to be compared in any way with local government, but at least for this purpose it must be so compared. As we know, local authorities do not fix their own remuneration, despite the fact that they have to raise revenues.

I also believe that the Members of the Assembly would much prefer not to have to fix their own salaries and allowances. We know the difficulties that such personal decisions make for Members of this House.

I suggest that on these grounds alone the Bill should be amended as their Lordships suggest.

We were unable to debate this clause previously because of the guillotine. Apart from the principle and the propriety of seeking to give Parliament, through the Secretary of State, the right to fix the remuneration of Members of the Assembly, these amendments also enable us to find out more about the Assembly itself and to learn something about the nature of the beast.

The first thought that must strike anybody is that we are talking about an Assembly that will be part-time. This may have been news to the Government when it was raised in another place on 24th April and again on 8th June, but the Government have had time to consider the work load of the Assembly and Ministers must now know, even though they are most reluctant to admit it, that we are talking about a part-time Assembly. However one looks at the work load, even allowing for the validity of Parkinson's law that work expands to fill the time available to it, there is no escaping the fact that this will be a part-time Assembly.

Mr. Russell Johnston

Is it not a fact—in asking this I am not being argumentative—that the Conservative Party has throughout argued in respect of the House of Commons that its Members should have the right to do other jobs? In that respect this place also is a part-time assembly.

Mr. Fletcher

That may be so, but it has little to do with this argument. If anyone works as hard as most of us do and still has outside activities, good luck to him. Members of the Scottish Assembly will be thoroughly bored unless they have outside occupations, judging by the work load of that body.

My noble Friend Lord Glenkinglas estimated in another place that in a normal year the Scottish Assembly would require only about three months to do its work. I think that that is a very generous estimate. My calculation is that Parliament copes adequately with both non-devolved and devolved matters in this House in less than half that amount of time. Very few hon. Members here today would complain that we do not spend enough time considering Scottish matters.

I wonder why the Government are so reluctant to admit that they are sponsoring a part-time Assembly in Scotland. I wonder why they appear to be taken aback by that news. Surely, if they have considered any aspect of devolution at all or any aspect of this Assembly, they must have considered the work load and the number of days in a year that would be spent working in the Assembly.

It may be that the suggestion of a part-time Assembly seems less attractive to Ministers and their supporters in electoral terms. If the Assembly is not presented as a Labour vote winner in Scotla,nd, it cannot be presented as anything at all. Therefore, it may lose its appeal if people are told before the election that the Assembly will meet for only a few weeks each year. Of course, it could be open to the public between sittings, and if the public were charged for admission that might recover some of the costs.

The fact remains that we are dealing with a cosmetic exercise that must look less attractive if it is exposed that the Assembly will be part-time, sitting very few weeks each year.

Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrewshire, West)

The hon. Member has said many times, as if it were a matter of fact, that this is a part-time Assembly. He has also drawn in aid the point that people in the Assembly can do other jobs, as they do in this House—mainly on the Conservative Benches.

He also referred to the estimate of Lord Glenkinglas. But that is no criterion for deciding this matter. Is that any reason at all for saying that this Assembly will be a part-time Assembly if its Members wish to do their work diligently, instead of wasting their time in the City as hon. Members opposite do? Is he saying that it cannot be a full-time occupation? Of course it can.

Mr. Fletcher

By defining the Scottish Assembly as a part-time Assembly I am referring to the amount of time that is required to perform the devolved functions. I have already quoted what Lord Glenkinglas said about the work load and I have already done my own calculations and worked out the number of hours that we spend on devolved and non-devolved matters. If one multiplies that figure by four one still gets only three months of full-time Assembly work.

Mr. Gerry Fowler (The Wrekin)

rose—

Mr. Fletcher

No, I shall not give way—

Mr. Fowler

No, because the hon. Member is in dead trouble.

Mr. Fletcher

I am not in dead trouble. I want further to amplify the points that I have made about the Assembly. I have made comparisons with similar Assemblies in other countries and these confirm the part-time nature of this body.

Scotland is not such a special place, despite the claims of enthusiasts on both sides of the House, that it requires something terribly different from, for example, a State legislature in the United States. In the United States where there is a great divergence of population sizes among the States, most State legislatures operate on a part-time basis, working about 100 days in the year—the equivalent of 14 full working weeks. That should be of some significance to those hon. Members who are rushing to say that my point is not at all appropriate to the Scottish Assembly.

The fact is that hon. Members opposite have not given any thought to this at all. They might have done, had the guillotine allowed us to discuss clause 31. However, they should have done so in any case instead of trotting into the Lobbies time after time to support the exclusion of Lords amendments and supporting this Assembly and this plan for devolution. It would do them the world of good if they considered the sort of animal that they are determined to try to inflict on the Scottish people.

Mr. George Reid (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

Since the hon. Member has given so much thought to this problem, could he tell us how much Members of the Assembly should be paid if they sit for only three months a year?

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher

On the question of salaries the only real comparison is Stormont. A Member's salary in Stormont until March 1972, when direct rule was imposed, was £1,450 a year. Until May 1974 when the Executive collapsed the salary at Stormont was £2,475. In both those periods the salary of a Member of this House was £4,500. Therefore, at that time Stormont Members were receiving about half our salaries. If Members of the Scottish Assembly get half our salaries for one-third of the work load they are doing rather well.

The Bill gives us some ideas of the Government's intention about the salaries and allowances of Members of the Assembly. The financial memorandum estimates £6,750,000 for salaries and related costs of the Assemblymen and the Executive—150 people—and the 240 supporting staff for the Assembly. If we allow half of that sum for accommodation and service costs, which is a reasonable deduction, we are left with £3,375,000 to pay the salaries of 390 people. That means an average salary of £8,650 for Members of the Executive, the Assembly and supporting staff. Therefore a Scottish Assemblyman's salary would be equivalent to that of a Member of Parliament. That would confirm what was said in another place by Lord Kirkhill. Speaking in the debate on 8th June he said: The assumption on which the Government have proceeded is that the pay and allowances of Assembly Members will be in line with those of Members of Parliament". He went on to say: The Secretary of State's initial determination will be no higher than the salary and allowances of MPs—and could well be lower."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8th June 1978; Vol. 392, c. 1547.] That is most gracious of him.

Therefore we see the Government's intentions, although they are reluctant to admit them publicly. The fact remains that we are talking about the salary being equivalent to that of a Member of Parliament for one-third of the work load. Despite all the noises of disagreement from hon. Members opposite, none of them has sought to try to prove that the work load would be more than one-third of ours.

Mr. Gerry Fowler

The hon. Member says that no one has sought to prove that point. That is because the hon. Member refused to give way, so it is not surprising. Does he not understand that devolution is partly about getting scrutiny of matters that we did not have time adequately to scrutinise in this place? Devolution is about better Government, which means more democratic and detailed scrutiny, not only of legislation but of executive acts. Therefore the basis of his saying that the Assembly's work load is only one-third of ours is totally nonsensical.

Mr. Fletcher

When someone runs out of factual arguments he often resorts to emotional argument. That is what the hon. Member has just done. That we may be our own worst enemies on the matter of salaries has nothing to do with the fact that the Scottish Assembly will be a part-time body which could pay its Members more than Members of Parliament.

If the Government did not consider the work load when they presented the Bill and financial memorandum to the House, they have committed another major blunder, comparable with their inability to resolve the West Lothian question.

Throughout all stages of the Bill the Government have refused to face these difficulties openly and honestly. The attempt to deceive public opinion continues right to the end, with Ministers refusing to admit that this costly exercise is all about a part-time Assembly meeting for only a few weeks each year. But obviously it is the Government's intention that the Members of the Assembly should have full-time salaries. The House should again be grateful to another place for passing this amendment. If Members of this House will consider the dangerous road that they are treading, they will support us in keeping this amendment in the Bill.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

There are few certainties in this debate, but I should be prepared to bet my proverbial shirt that, whatever else happens if this Assembly is set up, it will not be part-time. Professor Parkinson will be present—and how.

Further than that, there is a serious problem whether, if it were part-time, it would limit the nature of those who could become Members of the Assembly. It is a little difficult for a coal miner or a railwayman to be a Member of a part-time Assembly. Many of us would agree, whatever else we disagree about, that it would be intolerable to limit membership of an Assembly, if set up, to those who have private means and could afford to be Members, to pensioners or to those who for some other reason have a major occupation that would allow them to take part in a part-time occupation. My own view is that if the Assembly is set up there will have to be a living salary to go with it.

When speaking for the Government in the other place, Lord Kirkhill said that it would be insulting to give the Assembly responsibility for a wide range of matters affecting Scotland yet deny it the responsibility for fixing its own salaries. The Secretary of State for Scotland spoke of unjustified distrust. I believe that there is something in this argument.

My opposition to this proposal might wither away if we were to learn that there were to be tax powers in the Assembly. But the position is a little different. My own personal view is that if an Assembly were elected the Assemblymen would be subject to certain electoral disciplines and the discipline of embarrassment and would not put forward a salary for themselves above that of, for example, Members of the House of Commons. Indeed, public opinion would act as some kind of brake. Because of the embarrassment factor, it might happen that they would decide, as others have often decided in the past, ludicrously to underpay themselves for fear of understandable embarrassment.

I am bothered about the question of principle. Here we have a principle of Assemblymen setting their own terms, their own salaries and their own pension; and then simply forwarding the bill for Westminster to pick up. If there were tax-raising powers, it would be a different matter. But this is part of a block grant. My own view is that it would be a matter of dignity for many Members of what will be styled a Scottish Parliament—it is interesting to see not one SNP Member present for this debate—to settle for nothing less than the equivalent of membership of the House of Commons. To be fair to them, we have to admit that they, in common with us, will have to keep two establishments going. They will have the same problems as those who have to live away from home and they will not be able to live on much less than the salary drawn by a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Gerry Fowler

I wish to cavil at my hon. Friend's phrase "forward the bill to Westminster". As he says, this is part of the block grant. Therefore, what he says is total nonsense. Assembly Members will not send any bill here. What they spend on their own salaries will mean that they will have less to spend on other purposes. If they want to pay themselves high salaries and think that that is a means of making themselves popular, that is their own political judgment. It is not up to us to cavil at it, but it will be up to the Scottish electorate to pass judgment on them if they do anything so silly.

Mr. Dalyell

It may be my fault for being a little thick on this matter, but on the forty-third day of discussion on the Bill I do not understand precisely all about it. If what my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) says is true, as I think it may well be, let us be clear that the payment of an Assembly in Edinburgh—the 150 Assemblymen, their secretaries and entourage and all the paraphernalia that goes with it—will mean that much less to be spent on hospitals, housing and schools. That should be crystal clear.

Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden)

It is crystal clear.

Mr. Dalyell

It is not crystal clear in Scotland that the bill for this administrative elephant will mean that much less out of a Scottish allocation for hospitals, schools and all the rest.

Mr. Russell Johnston

That is an unfair argument. One must pay for effective democratic scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman knows this very well since he is prepared to table endless Written Questions at enormous cost to achieve a certain purpose.

Mr. Dalyell

When people say that I table endless Written Questions, I must counter by saying that I think I have tabled about half a dozen this year. That was a very unfair statement. On occasions when I have tabled Written Questions they have always related to clusters of Written Questions on questions of policy. I am not one of those who put down endless Questions to ascertain heaven knows what abstruse facts.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith)

My hon. Friend will recollect that he tabled a series of 25 Questions on the state of the nails in the Royal High School roof. Is that a matter of policy?

Mr. Dalyell

I tabled a cluster of Questions on the Royal High School, but I recollect that I was given few answers. What was revealed was that nobody had a clear idea of what was going on. If those responsible for construction at the High School had known what they were up to, all they had to do was examine the books and then answer the questions. Those Questions cannot, or should not, have cost £15 a nail or whatever the figure for Written Questions is.

I wish to ask the following question of the Minister of State. Would it be regarded as right, either here or in the country at large, for Assemblymen, with fewer duties and fewer responsibilities, to be paid the same as Members of the House of Commons without the Commons giving approval?

We still, on day 43, have no clear notion as to what this Assembly will do. We still do not know whether it will be full-time. Surely, the Government Front Bench can tell us at this stage whether it will be part-time and what are to be the hours of sittings and the length of sessions. We are still being presented with a pig in a poke and being asked to sign a blank cheque. Lord Kirkhill has a felicitous phrase for the Assembly. His view is that we should initiate the Assembly on a very light rein. I believe that a light rein means going into some kind of foggy mist in which none of us is very clear.

I wish to ask the Minister this precise question. What is envisaged as the payment for Ministers of the Scottish Executive? That is a fair question to ask. What will that great figure the Scottish Prime Minister be paid? Will he be paid as much as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Downing Street? Will he be paid as much as a member of the Cabinet? Surely, even if we do not know what an Assemblyman is to be paid, it should by now be clear what Ministers, who presumably will be full-time, will be paid. Suppose that there is a conflict. Who will resolve the quarrel? Presumably it will be a matter for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

In an article in The Observer some weeks ago, Mr. Alan Watkins wrote: As one Minister closely concerned with the legislation put it: 'The lads seemed to have this curious idea that the Judicial Committee was a collection of politicians who happened to be Privy Councillors. We didn't disabuse them, because if we'd told them clearly that we were giving power to the judges there'd have been trouble.'. You bet there would have been trouble. Whoever made that remark made it very perceptively. It is the truth. These matters will be resolved by judges. Is the House sure that judges are the best people to resolve the conflict between what Assemblymen and Assembly Ministers and hon. Members of this House should be paid? My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) raises his eyebrows. No doubt he will correct me if I am wrong, but surely the Judicial Committee will have to resolve this sort of conflict.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Dewar

I am not aware that there is such an arbitration procedure in the Bill. I was aware of the membership of the Judicial Committee and I am sure that my hon. Friend knew about it. I know that it has certain powers on ultra vires and intra vires, but can he tell me where there is provision for the Committee to arbitrate on salaries? I am unaware of any such procedure.

Mr. Dalyell

In order to save the time of the House, the best thing would be if the ignorance of my hon. Friend and myself could be thrown aside by a substantive answer from the Minister.

There is another argument that bothers me far more than anything I have said previously. It concerns the time bomb of the Robinson Committee's report on the remuneration of councillors which is ticking under us all. The remuneration of hon. Members may not be uppermost in the minds of those who are concerned about the remuneration of councillors, but we must face the fact that, with 150 Assemblymen in Edinburgh dealing with subjects that will be very much the same as those dealt with by local government, comparisons are bound to be made between the payment of Back Bench Assemblymen and those with the heavyweight responsibilities of, for example, those in the Scottish regions and districts.

Clearly, there will be a question whether Back-Bench Assemblymen should be paid more than, for example, the convener of planning of the Strathclyde region or the convener of education in the Lothian region. The latter two will have infinitely more responsibility in terms of public affairs that any Back-Bench Assemblyman and more responsibility than many junior Assembly Ministers.

The issue is that the local government heavyweights will either be deeply resentful at the amount paid to Assemblymen, whom they will see as doing much less work and having less responsibility than themselves, or they will all try to gravitate towards the Assembly, and this could conceivably lead to the end of the regions. From time to time, the Secretary of State has reiterated that the Assembly will not affect local government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern)

Order. I have allowed the hon. Member to go a bit wide here. The comparison of salaries does not arise on the amendment under consideration or anywhere in clause 31. I therefore ask him to leave out the question whether regions will be alive or dead after the establishment of the Assembly.

Mr. Dalyell

We are operating under a guillotine and I have taken more than my share of time. I leave it at the point that there is a mighty problem facing us all. If there is to be an Assembly, there will be an enormous amount of conflict between those who do the responsible jobs in local government and the Members of the Assembly. If the Assemblymen are paid what is considered to be a substantial salary and the others have to accept the Robinson Committee's report, there will be very great difficulties and great conflict.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg (Hampstead)

I intervene because I tabled an amendment in Committee which, thanks to the operation of the guillotine, was never reached. The same point arises again because another place has had enough wisdom to question the nonsense of the Bill as it was put through the House.

It may be that when my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) used the term "part-time" he did not please everyone. He was implying that the responsibilities of Assemblymen and so-called Ministers in the Assembly would not cover the entire range of the responsibilities of their counterparts in this House. The suggestion in my original amendment was to limit the salaries of Assemblymen to a percentage of the salaries of hon. Members of this House and to limit the salaries of so-called Ministers of the Assembly to one grade below their equivalents in this House. That would ensure some sort of comparison between the two Houses.

There is bound to be a decree of friction between this House and the Assembly. There will certainly be deliberately created friction if the SNP takes control of the Assembly. The SNP Assemblymen will make certain that they put through nonsensically high salaries simply to show up the foolishness of the British Parliament in allowing this matter to be left to them. We have a duty to the taxpayers of this country to ensure that the control of salaries in the Assembly stays in this House.

Mr. Reid

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the SNP policy for the past six years has been to put out the salaries of Members of the Scottish Assembly to a proper agency which can look at the work involved and tie the salaries to proper Civil Service grades so that Members of the Assembly do not have to go through the indignity of voting on their own rises?

Mr. Finsberg

I accept that the policy of the SNP is to appeal to whatever happens to be the popular mood of a constituency when there happens to be an election. That is its normal, considered way of proceeding, as it is, frequently, of the Liberal Party. I lump them together as Poujadists.

If we allow the Bill to go through without the sensible amendments from another place, we shall be creating friction for ourselves. We already have the nonsensical situation that those who print our words receive more for printing them than we get for uttering them. There may be a question of relativities, but if this system goes forward to the Assembly and its Members pay themselves more than we pay ourselves, we as the Mother of Parliaments will make ourselves look even more foolish than some people think we are already.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) made a fair comparison between Assemblymen and those in local government. If an Assemblymen's maximum reimbursement derives from a figure laid down by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the responsibilities of those in the Assembly are no more than those of a senior member of the Strathclyde regional council or the Greater London council, and people take offence, it will be because they are small-minded. No one could take offence at comparison with those who are given a maximum amount and can select, within that maximum, the scale or point they want for reimbursement. I should have thought that sensible and reasonable people would not take that amiss.

I hope that the House will not accept the judgment of the Secretary of State and overturn the Lords amendment but rather will endorse it as being practical and sound.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, Central)

The House knows my views on the Assembly as a principle. However, we appear, as it were, to be saddled with it. The question now is simply, on this particular group of amendments, who will decide the salaries of the Assemblymen and the Ministers there.

I agree with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) in this respect, that the weakest argument in favour of supporting the Lords amendments is that it will be a part-time Assembly. Certainly it will fill the time available to it, just as this place does. This place is about three-quarters part-time. There is an enormous amount of moonlighting in this place. We do not clean windows, but we go to the law courts and we do other jobs outside.

It is accepted, and I agree, that there is room in an elected Assembly for part-time Members who choose to do jobs outside. The same thing will apply in the Scottish Assembly. Whether it is part-time or full-time, there will be Members in it, as there are here, who make the job full-time or part-time. In this House there are a number of lawyers who practise in the law courts in the morning. The same may apply in Edinburgh. Maybe that is why it has been decided to site the Assembly in Edinburgh, because there are law courts there and there will be a mass of lawyers coming into the Assembly. They certainly will be part-time Members.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher

I take the point the hon. Member is making about the legal profession. However, if an hon. Member of this House who is a lawyer finds that he has not a brief on a particular day, there will be work to do in this House and he can come and do it. If a Member of the Assembly who is a lawyer has no legal work to do on any particular day, it is 10 to 1 that he will find that the Assembly is closed because it will be open for only one day a week. That is the difference.

Mr. Hamilton

I doubt that very much. We sit for only 150 days a year—less than half a year. We sit about 32 weeks on average in the year, five days a week and four days a week for most Members. Indeed, I am one of the most regular attenders here on Friday and I very rarely see anybody here. I make no virtue of it. I just happen to like to be here on a Friday.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The time is short before the guillotine falls. I ask the hon. Member to realise that what we are discussing is who should be responsible for the payments. I notice by the grin on the hon. Member's face that he agrees with me. Therefore I am not going to allow him to get away with it.

Mr. Hamilton

I would not cross swords with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are absolutely right. I shall come to the point right away. The question is who decides the salaries. The Secretary of State is quite right. The Assembly elected by the Scots will decide. We can be sure that the Scottish people will be watching very carefully the scale of salaries decided by their elected representatives in the Assembly. They will have regard to all the facts that have been adduced as to the regional chairmen's salaries and emoluments and the relationship between those salaries and those down here. If the salaries are regarded as too generous by the Scottish electors, they will take appropriate action. Having decided to set up the Assembly, we ought to leave it, as a body of responsible, elected people, to decide its own emoluments. I hope that it treats its Members less meanly than we do here.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston

I really cannot understand why those in this House who favour an Assembly should wish to deny that Assembly the right to set its own salaries. I can understand perfectly well the view of those who are against an Assembly wishing to deny it that right. That is perfectly logical. But it is not logical for those who wish to have an Assembly to take that line.

At the weekend I was talking to a constituent who is about 10 years younger than myself and who works for a Government agency. He gets £1,000 per year more than I do and has prospects for promotion. He wanted to know whether it would be a good idea for him to stand for the Scottish Assembly. What is the advice that I should give such a person? He is interested in giving service but he must naturally take account of the remuneration that is to be offered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are not dealing with officials' salaries. We are dealing with the salaries of Members of the Assembly.

Mr. Johnston

These matters have been dealt with at length by other speakers. It is surely proper to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Yes, and a great deal of it has been out of order, in my opinion. I have heard nothing about officials' salaries so far.

Mr. Johnston

On the contrary, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have no wish to dispute your view or your ruling.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Read Hansard tomorrow.

Mr. Johnston

Let me put it another way, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are discussing the setting of salaries for Members of the Assembly and whether they should be set by this House or by the Assembly itself. Surely, in examining this question—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

If the friend of the hon. Member for Inverness was going to give up his present post and stand for the Assembly, I am sorry. I apologise to the hon. Member. I thought that he was asking whether he should work for the Assembly. I am very sorry indeed.

Mr. Johnston

The only point I am making, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I am sure you will agree is relevant in this context, is that if one looks at the salaries paid in Government agencies, such as the Scottish Development Agency, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Tourist Board and compares them with the salaries postulated for the Assembly—to which the Secretary of State made reference in his opening remarks, though he did not commit himself to a figure, being a very careful Secretary of State—it is surely a matter of which this House, in considering this question, ought to take account. After all, there is a great deal of justifiable criticism of the salaries paid to permanent officials, whether in Government agencies or in local government. Otherwise, we shall not have an Assembly of value in checking the Executive.

As a long-standing supporter of the idea of a Scottish Parliament, I believe there is no point in having one unless it attracts people who have the capacity to check, supervise and exert a degree of control greater than is now being exercised over the Executive in Scotland. If that is not done I do not think that there is any point in going through the exercise at all.

As I understand the opposition of the Opposition—if I may put it that way—it is based, in part, on the fact that we cannot give the Assembly power to fix its own salaries because it does not have power to raise revenue. That was one of the major arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher). I do not accept that this argument is soundly based. I would agree with him—though I think that it is contradictory, incidentally, but that is the general Opposition stance on the Assembly—that the Assembly should have finance-raising powers. Given that it does not have such powers, it is surely accepted that it should have freedom to determine the expenditure of the moneys that it has been granted. Unless the Assembly has this power it lacks the responsibility that any properly elected body should have. I do not think there is any contradiction in that at all.

I fail also to understand the contention by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North that the Assembly would be part-time. At no time has anyone who has been engaged in putting forward the argument for the Assembly suggested that that would be so. I shall certainly give way to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North who is looking restive. If the Assembly fulfils what I should regard as its main function—to control the Executive in Scotland more effectively than is now happening—inevitably, the role of the Assembly Member will be every bit as full-time as that of Members in this place.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher

. The hon. Gentleman is a great federalist. Therefore, he will know that in the United States most of the States have part-time assemblies because the work load does not warrant full-time attendance. The people there are employed part-time in the State assemblies.

Mr. Johnston

That may be. Different traditions grow up in different parts of the world and different forms of government produce different patterns of behaviour. We are creating a new Assembly because of the demand of people in Scotland to see the Executive better controlled. That is the essence of the whole matter. In order to do that, we shall need full-time Members. I also earnestly say that, if we do not pay those Members proper salaries, we shall not get good Members and that will destroy the whole concept.

Mr. Gerry Fowler

I hope that the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) will forgive me when I say that, if we are to award salary by merit, to judge by his speech there may be a case for paying some future Members of the Assembly rather more than some Members of this place.

I turn to the major argument from the Opposition Benches. Again, it convinced me that the Opposition do not understand either devolution or democracy.

What is devolution about? The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), who intervened a little earlier, was trying to say "legislature" with regard to the American States. That is because he thinks of the Scottish Assembly as primarily or solely a legislative assembly. But, if he reads the Bill, he will see that we are constructing an Assembly with a committee structure designed to enable that Assembly to examine Executive acts day by day, to produce pre-legislative consideration of possible legislation, to examine legislation as we do in this place and to perform, if I may put it in summary, a much wider and more effective range of functions than we exercise in this House.

Many of us have often complained that we have become ineffective over the years because there has been a transfer of power from the House to the Executive—to whoever may be the Government from time to time. We have complained about it from both sides of the House, and rightly so.

We have tried with both the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies to create new structures with a more even balance—a balance that is rather different in each case. In the case of the Scottish Assembly, there will be an Executive, and so it will be called, but it will be more tightly controlled and scutinised than the Executive ever can be in this House. That is part of the object of the exercise. That is what devolution is about.

We cannot effectively do that here, because, if we try to do it for the United Kingdom as a whole, we shall have a virtually impossible task. The range of activities of the Government is too wide and we cannot effectively scrutinise all of them. Ministers cannot effectively scrutinise them either. If we look at what is done by regional offices of the Department of the Environment or of the Department of Industry, we discover that Ministers cannot effectively scrutinise those activities because there are too many decisions and they cannot arrive in this House. We have tried to create an Assembly which will be able to scrutinise in detail the activities of the Scottish Executive. I think that is right. That is why I say that speeches by Opposition Members indicate that they do not effectively understand devolution. If devolution is partly about that, it follows that the Scottish Assembly will not be part-time—working for one-quarter or one-third of the year. Whether it is or not is very much a matter for the Assembly. It is not for us to judge.

That takes me to my second theme—that the Opposition have demonstrated that they do not understand democracy. Why democracy? The Bill has been cast to enable as many decisions as possible, within the broad framework of what shall be retained here and what shall be left to Scotland, to be made by the Scottish Assembly. That is the democratic viewpoint. The view of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench is that we should leave as much as possible to be decided by the Scots in a devolved Assembly. It may be that the House would wish to cavil at that. It may be that some hon. Members do not agree that we should give that amount of discretion to the Scots. But let us be clear that, when they say that, they are opposing the principle of devolution and, indeed, of devolved democracy because they are saying that all power should be reserved to this place.

What is wrong with the notion that the Scottish Assembly should be able to set the salaries of its own Members, members of the Executive and the like? It is said that it might fix the level of salary at a point higher than that which we in this place can command. It is suggested that it might fix the salary at a point which would embarrass the paid officials, the chairmen or conveners of committees in Scottish local government and so on. Let it, if it wishes to do that. That is what devolution and democracy are about. If it does, and if the electorate does not like it, there is the normal democratic sanction and it will not be returned at the next election.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) laughs. He seems to think that the Conservative Party will be returned at the next election come hell or high water. That may be a confession of lack of faith in the prospects of his party in Scotland. If so, I should not be surprised. Indeed, I should have some sympathy with him. But that is no argument for saying that we here should fix the salary.

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)

For the record, perhaps I may point out that I was laughing at something entirely different and unconnected with the hon. Gentleman's speech.

Mr. Fowler

I am very relieved.

What is the true argument against allowing the Scottish Assembly to fix the salaries of its own Members? There is no argument against it if we believe that it is to be a democratic Assembly with power not retained here but genuinely devolved to Scotland.

We have seen yet another confession by the Opposition that they do not believe in devolution. That is what the debate is all about. I am not surprised that another place does not believe in devolution. It wants to hang on to its antique powers as long as it can. However, I am surprised that the Opposition should support the amendment from another place.

When we consider the prospect that the Scottish Assembly might set salaries at what we should regard as an excessively high level, we must remember that it is thereby taking money that could be used for other purposes out of a defined sum. If it is not a defined sum, it is a sum supplemented, in effect, only by stealing from the rate support grant. That is the only other means by which the Assembly could raise revenue. It could pay less to Scottish local authorities than it receives from the United Kingdom Government in rate support grant. That is in a sense a notional levy upon the rates. That is the only way it can raise extra money within the terms of the Bill. But that could be described as the most unpopular political act that any public body in this country could commit. If it wanted to commit collective suicide in that way, that would be for it to decide. But I do not believe that we should reserve powers to this House to fix salaries.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell

When my hon. Friend comes to speak on this matter from public platforms in the referendum will he make it clear that all this procedure will be at the expense of hospitals, houses and education?

Mr. Fowler

Of course, I make no bones about that. My hon. Friend and I have discussed this frequently in the past. If we want to spend money on one item we cannot simultaneously spend it on another. That situation applies to us here at Westminster and it always has. There is a limit to public expenditure. We can and do argue about what that limit should be, but none of us takes the view that public expenditure is limitless, and it will not be limitless in Scotland either. Therefore I believe that the Scottish Assembly must be able to set its own priorities. If those priorities include paying its own Members and the members of the Scottish Executive exorbitantly high salaries, judgment must be passed by the Scots, and not by us in this place.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I remind the House that there are roughly 20 minutes left for Back-Bench speeches. As many hon. Members as possible should be given the chance to speak, and therefore I think that five minute speeches would probably see us right.

Mr. Reid

I do not think that I have heard a more Micawberish speech than that which was made from the Conservative Front Bench this afternoon. It was both mean and grudging. It was a perfect example of the Poujadism and populism which marks the Tory Party north of the border. I urge hon. Members to note that the Tories propose that Members of the Scottish Assembly should be paid £3,100 a year.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That issue is not under consideration.

Mr. Reid

That sum was mentioned in an intervention and it is on the record. The figure was stated by the Tory Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), who spoke of paying half what the Members of this House receive.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher

The hon. Member should be clear in what he is saying. Neither the figure of £3,100, nor any other figure, was mentioned from this Front Bench.

Mr. Reid

The figure of half the salary paid to Members of this House was mentioned from the Tory Front Bench, and it is important that that should be put on the record. That figure is less than the average Scottish wage, and it is less than the payment to councillors in Scotland.

I want to tell a sad story which is germane to Members of this House. It is an internal matter. A number of years ago I wrote a story for a popular newspaper about a Member of this House who, when he was not dossing down in his private room, took a train on a warrant to the north of England, returning on a warrant the next morning. Now that I myself am a Member I regard that as a sad story. I do not want Members of the Scottish Assembly to be put in that sort of position, and on £3,100 a year they will be.

Let us follow up the arguments of the Tory Front Bench. When challenged on this issue the Front Bench spokesman said that the Members of the Assembly should go out and "make money on the side". Those were the words of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North. That sentiment is perfectly in keeping with the activities of his friends in another place who make plenty of money on the side, and unearned money at that.

The problem about the Scottish Assembly is that this House is attempting to hedge the Assembly in from the start. Underlying this debate is a great fear that somehow the Members who sit on Calton Hill could earn more than the Members of this House, that somehow they could break through the £6,500 barrier. I do not believe that the Members of the Assembly would be as irres ponsible as ever to seek more money than is paid to Members of the House of Commons. The problem is that Members of this House have been frightened to face this issue in the past and have paid themselves too little. This matter involves not only the salary of Members here and north of the border; it concerns also the amount of money that goes to Members' families.

If the Members of the Assembly are paid, as the Tories propose, £3,100 a year, that will have three consequences. First, able young Scots simply will not be able to afford to go to the Assembly. The second is that the old "Mafia" in the west of Scotland will move in—the people with the small job on the side. Those are the men who earn a little money from local councils, who operate a public relations consultancy, a public affairs business and so on. The third consequence is that on the Tory side the squirearchy will feel that it should take part. Those are the people who will have a private income from their estates. It will mean that the old, the retired and the infirm will be sitting on Calton Hill. That is quite clearly wrong. There is no point in having an Assembly on Calton Hill if it is Glasgow corporation writ large.

Mr. Percy Grieve (Solihull)

Is the hon. Member not muddying the waters of the discussion in debating how much the Members of the Scottish Assembly should be paid? Is not the issue before the House who is to decide what they should be paid?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his support.

Mr. Reid

I think that the issue I am raising is highly germane to this debate since so many hon. Members have been grudging in their attitude to Assembly pay from the start. They have made clear by implication that whatever happens the Members of the Assembly will get less than Members of this House. The issue is germane, too, when one considers salaries currently being paid in Europe. Clearly they have a bearing on what will be paid in Edinburgh. When we travel to Strasbourg we find that Members of the German Lander, the Federal sub-parliaments, earn £12,000 to £15,000 a year plus up to £20,000 of expenses. It will be difficult for Members of the Scottish Assembly who are dealing with matters which are both devolved and of European competence to live within that sort of wages league.

The basic problem is one of hypocrisy. This House is perfectly prepared to vote notional pension rights for Members, but never to take the reality of Members' pay straight on the nose. I hope that that will not happen north of the border. I hope that north of the border SNP policy in this matter will be given greater credence. I hope that instead of Members of the Assembly voting their own salaries the whole matter will be put out to tender to professional "head hunters". The basic question "What are Members worth? What do they do. Whom do they represent?" should be asked.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member cannot pursue that line of argument.

Mr. Reid

A professional report should be produced. That matter should be within the competence of the Assembly. Members' salaries should be tied to a Civil Service grade so that they do not go through the indignity of having to vote their own pay rises. I believe that Members of this House should be paid about £12,500, and that Members of the Assembly should receive about £8,500.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are not to have a discussion on the level of salaries.

Mr. Reid

I mentioned that matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it has been touched on before.

Unless this matter is left to the Members of the Assembly a black joke could be perpetrated in Scotland. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) spoke of Members moonlighting. There is a real danger that unless the Assembly has some degree of control over this matter Members will moonlight in Edinburgh as they moonlight here. There should be two tiers of salary—for those who are full-time and those who are not—and that is also an appropriate matter for the Assembly to decide. If the Assembly does not decide these matters we shall discover that, given a predetermined, lower-than-Westminster salary level, the Assembly Member for Drumnadrochit, aged 73 and having kept his nose clean, will be told that he can go along to the Assembly and collect his money. On the other side will be the Tory squirearchy.

The Assembly presents a new opportunity to look at the salary and allowances which elected representatives in the United Kingdom should be paid. Maybe if that is done north of the border it will have beneficial repercussions for this House.

Mr. James Sillars (South Ayrshire)

I shall take only a few seconds and try to remain in order.

The Secretary of State referred to a temporary arrangement whereby he or his successor would fix the first salaries before the Assembly—if the Bill went through as it left this House—decided the level of remuneration. In effect, the Secretary of State, who is ultimately controlled by this House, will have the major influence on the level of salaries subsequently set by the Assembly. What he described as a temporary arrangement will in all probability be the permanent setting of the norm by which the Assembly's own determination is ultimately judged by the Assembly itself and the Scottish electorate.

Outside the important principle whether the Assembly has tax-raising powers, I do not know what all the kerfuffle has been about today. That role of the Secretary of State will be absolutely crucial in determining the parameters within which the Assembly will be able to operate in fixing salaries.

One or two of us have been trade union officials and we know that once a norm is fixed in the workers' minds and those of the general public, that is the criterion for judging everything else. Thus, both points of view expressed today were met in the Bill as it left this House. This House will have an influence on the level of salaries and the Government's point will be met, that the Assembly will be able to fix its own salaries after the first determination. It is therefore logical to reject the Lords amendment.

Mr. John Stokes (Halesowen and Stourbridge)

I apologise to the Minister for not having been here earlier.

The issue before us is whether we should fix the salaries of the new Assembly here or allow its Members to do it. I do not want an Assembly at all, but if we are to have one it must have sensible rules. It is difficult to decide what is best without knowing how the Assembly will work, how many weeks it will sit and how much time its Members will give to it. For instance if, as I hope, they do not sit more than occasionally and briefly, they might be paid an attendance allowance instead of a salary, as is given to their Lordships and to local councillors. If there is to be a salary, it surely should not be fixed by reference to the absurdly low salaries that we pay ourselves.

If there is to be another criterion, it would be absurd in this United Kingdom to have one set of salaries here, which we fixed ourselves, and another in what was in some ways a rival assembly. Many hon. Members will take it hard if this Assembly pays its Members more than our levels. Allowances are easier to fix, but salaries and especially pensions present difliculties. It seems wrong for the Assembly to fix salary levels because, unlike this House, it will have no tax-raising powers. Whatever Labour Members say, the electorate in Scotland will therefore have no redress if the Assembly decides to vote its Members extravagant salaries.

For all these reasons it is wise and cautious to support the amendment. Once again, on this messy, complex and dangerous Bill, we are in a gigantic muddle, trying to legislate for the unknown. It is only reasonable and prudent to put as many curbs as possible on the activities of a new, untried and wholly experimental Assembly.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Before I call on the next speaker, I would remind hon. Members that the winding-up speeches are to begin at ten minutes to six, giving each Front Bench speaker five minutes. I would therefore ask the hon. Member whom I call to resume his seat by that time. Mr. Dewar.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden)

I shall certainly observe that ruling.

This has been a diverting debate. I have discovered that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) does not know the composition of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and he was in danger of inventing for it a new arbitration power.

The Tory arguments have been puzzling. I have been a Member of Parliament off and on for about five years and I still do not know whether this is a full-time or a part-time Chamber. If I were here for five centuries, I still should not know. I can say that Mr. X is a full-time Member and Mr. Y is a part-time Member, but there is no general rule. No doubt the same will apply to the Scottish Assembly.

If I were a Member of the Assembly, responsible for legislation on housing, education, local government and roads, I could genuinely—not by Parkinson's law but in an attempt simply to make myself well-informed and effective—work full-time. If I were merely worried about housing problems in one part of my constituency—for example, Drumchapel—I could make myself a full-time Member of the Assembly. So it is false to talk in terms of full-time or part-time.

The real point of this argument is whether it should be the Assembly or this House which determines the Assembly-mens' salaries. The Lords amendment was passed, in what not even their Lordships would describe as a crowded and tense House, by 23 votes to 20. Those arguments were not concerned with constitutional principles. The only point of constitutional principle advanced in this debate is that it would be wrong for the Assembly to fix its own salaries when it did not raise taxes. That is a peculiar argument, in a vacuum. It is an argument against the Assembly having any legislative or administrative powers. It strikes root and branch at the whole concept of an Assembly. It might be dealt with in our debate about taxation powers, but to say that the Assembly may decide on housing and wide sectors of Scottish life without having taxation powers but that it is peculiarly wrong when it comes to salaries is a non sequitur.

The only other argument used in the Lords and here is about a matter of propriety and taste, that it is not very nice for people to settle their own salaries, that they will be embarrassed and ultimately not efficient, that they will err on the side of timidity for fear of public opinion. That argument was put forward especially by Lord Glenkinglas. He said that if the Assembly set its own salaries, it would be spat upon for feathering its own nest. That is a little dramatic, but it is said that it will be difficult. However, to say that the Assembly cannot face up to these difficulties is a logical nonsense.

That argument was combined with a totally incompatible one. Lord Ferrers for the Opposition said that his worry was not that they would be timid but that they would set European-style salaries totally out of step with Westminster. That also is a silly argument. There is the discipline of having to face the electorate and of the fact that the money will have to come from the block grant. We can trust the Scottish Assemblymen to recognise that if they go for broke on extravagant and glossy salaries, they will pay a price in terms of criticism and facing their electorate.

If we are to have an Assembly—we are assuming that when we discuss this amendment—with a budget of £2,000 million a year, to say that it should not be trusted, or that it would be embarrassed, with the task of spending a few scores of thousands on the margin when deciding its own salaries is a strange and silly argument.

I accept that it is not always pleasant to consider one's own remuneration. However, it is a nettle which has to be grasped, and I am quite clear that it would be better for the Assembly to do it than for it to be done second-hand in this Chamber.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

This has been a very interesting debate in which a great number of views have been expressed. We had the admission from the Liberal Party that one of its complaints concerned the lack of promotion prospects which inevitably stemmed from membership of that party. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, despite your hard words, there is no doubt that many hon. Members were discussing whether the salary for Assemblymen should be high or low, instead of deciding, as we should be in considering these amendments, whether it should be fixed by the House of Commons or by the Assembly itself.

There are two issues on which we have to make up our minds in discussing these amendments. The first is the important matter raised by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), which is the question of the initial salary which under clause 31 is decided by the Secretary of State and not subject to the approval of the House of Commons.

One of the proposals in this set of amendments is that that initial salary, which has to be made as an estimate, without any knowledge of whether the Assembly will be part time or full time and without any indication of the likely work load, should be approved by this House. There can be little doubt that the Secretary of State should accept this first proposition of the Lords that, even if we are to leave the Assembly to work out the salary long term, at least the initial salary should be subject to the approval of the House of Commons as a whole.

I hope therefore that if the Secretary of State cannot budge, despite the excellent arguments from this side of the House and despite some of those advanced from Government supporters, he will at least accept that his decision about the initial salary level should be subject to the approval of the House of Commons in the way in which most important decisions are. As the hon. Member for South Ayrshire rightly said, once this important determination has been made, any future salary changes will be based on it.

The second issue, of course, is whether the salary in the longer term should be fixed by the Assembly or by the House of Commons. There were some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler), who seemed to argue that this was a desperately important matter concerning the power, status and freedom of the Assembly. However, some of us feel that when we are setting up an Assembly which is a subservient Parliament of a kind, we should be creating major problems for our democracy if we had wildly differing salaries. An obvious difficulty would arise if the Assembly decided, for what might be very good reasons bearing in mind the salary levels in this House, to pay a higher salary to Assemblymen than we have in the House of Commons for Members of Parliament.

We should create a very dangerous situation if, when we are sharing power between Edinburgh and London, there were not some arrangement whereby the House of Commons ensured that there was a reasonable relationship between the two salaries. It is unfortunate that some people have interpreted this discussion as meaning that Westminster is the body which wants to be mean and to have very low salaries for the Assemblymen and that the Assembly is the body which wants to pay its Members extravagant salaries. We know from our own experience in this House that it is very difficult for an Assembly which fixes the salaries of its own Members to fix extravagant salaries.

There is no indication that the Assembly, making its own decision, will pay itself extravagant salaries. The important question that we have to decide is whether it would help democracy in the United Kingdom as a whole if the House of Commons had no control and no say over the salaries paid to the Assemblymen.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) was right when he said that we were moving into uncharted seas. Instead of one Parliament for Britain, we shall have Parliament here, other Parliaments of a sort in Edinburgh and Cardiff, a European Parliament, and the further complication of having a review of the allowances and possible salaries in local government which presumably will still be subject in the last resort to the Secretary of State.

At a time when we in this House are reconsidering whether our own salaries are fixed in the right way and in a sensible way, it would be fair and reasonable to try to spell out some procedure whereby we could at least harmonise the relationship between the salaries paid in different Parliaments to different individuals. Unless we have the Lords amendments or some wording on these lines, it will not be possible for this to be done. Of course, it might be possible for the so-called Scottish Prime Minister and our own Government down here to get together and work out an amicable arrangement. In my view, however, it would be much better to provide for this in legislation.

Those who oppose the Lords amendments make the mistake of assuming that the House of Commons would be unreasonable and would allocate miserable salaries to the Assemblymen. We want a proper relationship between the two which takes account of the role, duties and responsibilities of Assemblymen. Therefore, I hope that we can accept the amendments proposed by the House of Lords. If the Government will not accept that we should have this relationship between the salaries in the two Parliaments, I hope that the Secretary of State will at least agree that the House of Commons as a whole should have some say in what the initial salary is to be.

There has been a great deal of talk about whether the Assembly will be part time or full time. We do not know. It will depend a great deal on how the Assemblymen interpret their powers and responsibilities and how they use them. However, it would be a mistake to overestimate the amount of legislative and other power we are devolving to the Assembly. It would be a mistake to make the assumption that it will be a body which sits discussing laws and other matters all day and all year round. The decision of the Secretary of State about the initial salary will be a difficult one.

However, bearing in mind all the possibilities of conflict inherent in this Bill and all the problems for the unity of Britain and the constitution which stem from this unworkable Bill, I hope that we shall not add to the problems by having disputes between the two bodies about the relative salary levels. The sensible course is to make sure that there is a reasonable salary for parliamentarians in both places bearing a proper relationship the one to the other. When we in this House consider the inequity of the arrangements which we have made ourselves for considering our salaries, I hope that in setting up the Assembly we shall have a proper relationship between the two jobs to ensure a fair rate in both London and Edinburgh.

Mr. Millan

As you have reminded us on a number of occasions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this debate is about a comparatively narrow but extremely important issue. It concerns who shall decide the Assembly salaries, including those of the Ministers and the Scottish Secretary in the Assembly.

The House is interested in inquiring about the work load of the Assembly. I said in my opening remarks that that was a relevant factor to take into account in deciding the levels of salaries and allowances. However, it is not possible for me to make any pronouncement about the work load of the Assembly because that will be a matter for the Assembly itself. How often the Assembly sits, its hours of work, how far it feels that it should sit for a large part of the year or for a shorter part of the year than is typical in the House of Commons are all matters for the Assembly itself to decide in fixing its methods of working.

Similarly, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that it is slightly misleading to talk about a part-time or a fall-itme Member. It is a matter that we have never satisfactorily resolved for Members of the House of Commons, and it would be foolish of us to try to make a decision on the matters dealt with in these amendments on some estimation about whether the Assembly will be manned by full-time or part-time Members when this is the kind of question which we have never satisfactorily resolved for ourselves. I agree with my hon. Friend that some Members are likely to be full time and

that some will be part time. This is the kind of factor which no doubt the Assembly will have in mind in fixing the salaries of its Members.

I repeat what I said at the beginning of this debate. Both in principle and in practice, I believe that it is sensible for the Assembly to do this. I believe that it would be a potential source of conflict if we attempted to reserve this power here.

Of course, for practical reasons, I have to fix the salaries in the first instance. But, as hon Members will note if they look at clause 31, that will be done only for the Members of the Assembly and not for the Scottish Secretaries and their assistants. That will be left completely to the Assembly to determine. That means that very early in the Assembly's operations it will have to—

It being Six o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [4th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed front the Chair.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 269.

Division No. 272 AYES 5.0 p.m.
Allaun, Frank Carmichael, Neil Duffy, A. E. P.
Anderson, Donald Carter-Jones, Lewis Dunn, James A.
Archer, Peter Cartwright, John Dunnett, Jack
Armstrong, Ernest Castle, Rt Hon Barbara Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Ashley, Jack Clemitson, Ivor Eadle, Alex
Ashton, Joe Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S) Edge, Geoff
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Cohen, Stanley Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Atkinson, Norman Coleman, Donald Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Concannon, Rt Hon John Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Bain, Mrs Margaret Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) English, Michael
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Corbett, Robin Evans, Gwyntor (Carmarthen)
Bates, Alt Cowans, Harry Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Bean, R. E. Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Evans, John (Newton)
Beith, A. J. Craigen, Jim (Maryhill) Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood Crawford, Douglas Faulds, Andrew
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Crawshaw, Richard Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Bidwell, Sydney Cronin, John Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Bishop, E. S. Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) Flannery, Martin
Blenkinsop, Arthur Cryer, Bob Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Boardman, H. Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Ford, Ben
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) Forrester, John
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Dalyell, Tam Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Davidson, Arthur Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Bradley, Tom Davies, Rt Hon Denzil Freud, Clement
Bray, Dr Jeremy Davies, Ifor (Gower) Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) George, Bruce
Brown, Robert, C. (Newcastle W) Deakins, Eric Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Buchan, Norman Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Ginsburg, David
Buchanan, Richard de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Golding, John
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) Dempsey, James Gould, Bryan
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Dewar, Donald Gourlay, Harry
Campbell, Ian Doig, Peter Grant, John (Islington C)
Canavan, Dennis Dormand, J. D Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Cant. R. B. Douglas-Mann, Bruce Grocott, Bruce
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Madden, Max Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) Magee, Bryan Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Hardy, Peter Mallalleu, J. P. W. Sillars, James
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter Marks, Kenneth Silverman, Julius
Hart, Rt Hon Judith Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Skinner, Dennis
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Smith, Rt. Hon. John (N Lanarkshire)
Hayman, Mrs Helene Maynard, Miss Joan Snape, Peter
Heffer, Eric S. Meacher, Michael Spearing, Nigel
Henderson, Douglas Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Spriggs, Leslie
Hooley, Frank Mikardo, Ian Stallard, A. W.
Hooson, Emlyn Millan, Rt Hon Bruce Steel, Rt Hon David
Horam, John Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H) Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby) Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, lichen) Stoddart, David
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Molloy, William Stott, Roger
Huckfield, Les Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Strang, Gavin
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Summerskill, Hon. Dr Shirley
Hughes, Mark (Durham) Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Swain, Thomas
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Morton, George Martin Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Moyle, Rt Hon Roland Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Hunter, Adam Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) Noble, Mike Thomas, Ron (Bristoll NW)
Irving, Rt Hon s. (Dartford) Oakes, Gordon Thompson, George
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) Ogden, Eric Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) O'Halloran Michael Thnrnpe Rt Hon Jeremy (N Davon)
Janner, Greville Orbach, Maurice Thorpe, Stan(preston)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Tilley, John
Jeger, Mrs Lena Ovenden, John Tomlinson, John
John, Brynmor Padley, Walter Tomney, Frank
Johnson, James (Hull West) Palmer, Arthur Torney, Tom
Johnson, Walter (Derby S) Pardoe, John Urwin, T. W.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Park, George Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Jones, Alec (Rhondda) Parker, John Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Jones, Barry (East Flint) Parry, Robert Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Pavitt, Laurie Walker, Terry (Kingswocd)
Judd, Frank Pendry, Tom Ward, Michael
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Penhaligon, David Watkins, David
Kelley, Richard Perry, Ernest Watkinson, John
Kerr, Russell Price, C. (Lewisham W) Watt, Hamish
Kilfedder, James Price, William (Rugby) Weetch, Ken
Kilroy-Silk, Robert Radice, Giles Weitzman, David
Kinnock, Neil Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S) Wellbeloved, James
Lambie, David Reld, George Welsh, Andrew
Lamborn, Harry Richardson, Miss Jo White, Frank R. (Bury)
Lamond, James Roberts, Albert (Normanton) White, James (Pollok)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington) Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) Whitehead, Phillip
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) Robertson, George (Hamilton) Whitlock, William
Lever, Rt Hon Harold Robertson, John (Paisley) Wigley, Dafydd
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Robinson, Geoffrey Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Lltterick, Tom Roderick, Caerwyn Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Loyden, Eddie Rodgers, George (Chorley) Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Luard, Evan Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton) Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Lyon, Alexander (York) Rooker, J. W. Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) Roper, John Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson Rose, Paul B. Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
McCartney, Hugh Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock) Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
MacCormick, Iain Rowlands, Ted Wise, Mrs Audrey
McDonald, Dr Oonagh Ryman, John Woodall, Alec
McElhone, Frank Sandeison, Neville Woof, Robert
MacFarquhar, Roderick Sedgemore, Brian Wrigglesworth, Ian
McKay, Allen Sever, John Young, David (Bolton E)
MacKenzie, Gregor Shaw, Arnold (llford South)
Maclennan, Robert Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Shore, Rt Hon Peter Mr. James Tinn and
McNamara, Kevin Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE) Mr. Ted Graham.
NOES
Adley, Robert Biggs-Davlson, John Budgen, Nick
Aitken, Jonathan Blaker, Peter Bulmer, Esmond
Alison, Michael Body, Richard Burden, F. A.
Amery, Rt Hon Julian Boscawen. Hon Robert Butler. Adam (Bosworth)
Arnold, Tom Bottomley, Peter Carlisle, Mark
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Awdry, Daniel Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) Channon, Paul
Baker, Kenneth Braine, Sir Bernard Churchill, W. S.
Banks, Robert Brittan, Leon Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Bell, Ronald Brocklebank-Fowler, C. Clark, William (Croydon S)
Bendall, Vivian Brooke. Peter Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay) Brotherton, Michael Clegg, Walter
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Cockcroft, John
Benyon, W. Bryan, Sir Paul Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Berry, Hon Anthony Buchanan-Smith, Alick Cope, John
Bitten, John Buck, Antony Cormack, Patrick
Corrie, John Jones, Arthur (Daventry) Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Costain, A. P. Jopling, Michael Rees-Davies, W. R.
Crouch, David Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Crowder, F. P. Kaberry, Sir Donald Ronton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford) Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Rhodes James, R.
Dean, Paul (N Somerset) Kershaw, Anthony Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Dodsworth, Geoffrey Kimball, Marcus Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Drayson, Burnaby King, Evelyn (South Dorset) Ridsdale, Julian
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward King, Tom (Bridgwater) Rifkind, Malcolm
Durant, Tony Kitson, Sir Timothy Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Dykes, Hugh Knight, Mrs Jill Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John Knox, David Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Lamont, Norman Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Elliott, Sir William Langford-Holt, Sir John Ross, William (Londonderry)
Emery, Peter Latham, Michael (Melton) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Fairbairn, Nicholas Lawrence, Ivan Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Fairgrieve, Russell Lawson, Nigel Royle, Sir Anthony
Farr, John Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Sainsbury, Tim
Fell, Anthony Lloyd, Ian St. John-Stevas, Norman
Finsberg, Geoffrey Loveridge, John Scott, Nicholas
Fisher Sir Nigel Luce, Richard Scott-Hopkins, James
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) Macfarlane, Neil Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Shelton WilIiam (Streatham) Fletcher-Cooke, Charles MacGregor, John
Fookes, Miss Janet MacKay, Andrew (Stechford) Shepherd, Colin
Forman, Nigel Macmilian, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) Shersby, Michael Silvester Fred
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f d) McNair-WIISOn, M. (Newbury)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) Sims, Roger
Fox, Marcus Madel, David Sinclair, Sir George
Fry, Peter Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Skeet, T. H. H.
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D. Marten, Nell Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Gardiner, George (Reigate) Mates, Michael Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) Mather, Carol Speed, Keith
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham) Maude, Angus Spence, John
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Glyn, Dr Alan Mawby, Ray Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Stainton, Keith
Goodhart, Philip Mayhew, Patrick Stanbrook, Ivor
Goodhew, Victor Meyer, Sir Anthony Stanley, John
Goodlad, Alastair Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Gorst, John Mills, Peter Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) Miscampbell, Norman Stokes, John
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Stradling Thomas, J
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) Moate, Roger Tapsell, Peter
Grieve, Percy Molyneaux, James Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Griffiths, Eldon Monro, Hector Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Grist, Ian Montgomery, Fergus Tebbit, Norman
Grylls, Michael Moore, John (Croydon C) Temple-Morris, Pefer
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. More, Jasper (Ludlow) Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Evrell) Morgan, Geraint Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral Townsend, Cyril D.
Hampson, Dr Keith Morris, Michael (Northampton S) Trotter, Neville
Hannam, John Morrison, Charles (Devizes) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye) Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss Mudd, David Viggers, Peter
Haselhurst, Alan Neave, Airey Wakeham, John
Hastings, Stephen Nelson, Anthony Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Havers, Sir Michael Neubert, Michael Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Hawkins, Paul Newton, Tony Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Heath, Rt Hon Edward Normanton, Tom Wall, Patrick
Hicks, Robert Nott, John Walters, Dennis
Higgins, Terence L. Oppenheim, Mrs Sally Warren, Kenneth
Hodgson, Robin Page, John (Harrow West) Weather ill. Bernard
Holland, Philip Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) Wells, John
Hordern, Peter Page, Richard (Workington) Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Parkinson, Cecil Whitney, Raymond (Wycombe)
Howell, David (Guildford) Pattie, Geoffrey Wiggin, Jerry
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) Percival, Ian Winterton, Nicholas
Hunt, David (Wirral) Peyton, Rt Hon John Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Hunt John (Bromley) Pink, R. Bonner Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Hurd, Douglas Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch Younger, Hon George
Hutchison, Michael Clark Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) Price, David (Eastleigh) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
James, David Prior, Rt Hon James Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, and
jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'& W'df'd) Pym, Rt Hon Francis Mr. Jim Lester.
Jessel, Toby Raison, Timothy
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) Rathbone, Tim

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Six o'clock.

Lords amendments nos. 64 to 68 disagreed to.

Lords amendments nos. 69 to 80 agreed to.