HC Deb 27 June 1978 vol 952 cc1332-5

(1) For subsection (7) of section 3 of the Act of 1972 (which was inserted by section 1 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1976) there shall be substituted the following subsection:— (7) Any reference in this Part of this Act to a resolution of the House of Commons relating to the remuneration of Members shall be construed as a reference to an effective resolution of the House of Commons relating to the remuneration of Members and, where there are two or more such resolutions in force, as a reference to those resolutions taken together.

(2) In section 35(1) (interpretation) of the Act of 1972 the following shall be inserted after the definition of "contribution"— 'effective resolution' means a resolution which is not framed as an expression of opinion".

(3) This section shall not affect the operation under the Act of 1972 of any resolution passed by the House of Commons before the commencement of this Act.'—[Mr. John Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time

Mr. John Smith

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. George Cunningham) put down this new clause. I understand that it is impossible for him to be here this evening and the Government have undertaken to move it on his behalf because it has the full support of Government. The whole question of abstract motions is a rather arcane subject and perhaps I could briefly indicate to the House the reason why this new clause is put forward by my hon. Friend and why it is supported by the Government.

Its effect is to ensure that Members will have full freedom to discuss their own salaries and proposed increases without regard to what may be Government policy. They have done so ever since parliamentary salaries were introduced in 1911 by the device of abstract motions, that is to say, motions framed as expressions of opinion which do not require the Queen's recommendation and are not governed by the Standing Orders and practice of the House which reserve the initiative in financial matters to the Crown. The reasons that abstract motions were sufficient to justify the payment of increased salaries was that the Government, having moved or agree to them, could be relied upon to present in due course Estimates sufficient to cover the increases.

Due to an oversight the freedom enjoyed by Members to move or amend such motions was lost by the enactment of the Ministerial Salaries and Members Pensions Act 1965, the predecessor of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972. Under those Acts the Parliamentary Contributory Pensions Fund is maintained partly by contributions in the form of deductions from Members' salaries and partly by Exchequer contributions out of voted money. Every increase in Members salaries automatically leads not only to an increase in the sums deducted from the salaries but also to an increase in the Exchequer contributions. Accordingly any motion leading to such an increase ought to have the Queen's recommendation and no amendment would be in order unless it was covered by the Queen's recommendation.

This effect of the Acts was overlooked on all occasions when motions about Members' salaries were before the House until it was discovered last July, after the Government had tabled its motion and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury had tabled his amendment. If the Acts remained as they are without this amendment it would in future be impossible for motions about Members' salaries, however framed, to be treated as abstract motions. The clause would restore the character of abstract motions to motions framed as an expression of opinion. It would thus restore to Members their freedom of expression and their freedom to move amendments.

The operation of the Acts would then be dependent on effective resolutions, that is to say, resolutions not framed as expressions of opinion. Such resolutions will, of course, require the Queen's recommendation and it will not be open to Members to move amendments not covered by the Queen's recommendation. In the normal case an effective resolution would be moved immediately after the corresponding abstract motion or even, if no amendment was put down to the abstract motion, instead of it.

One possible effect of the clause, however, might be some delay, in certain circumstances, in the payment of increased salaries, even to the level proposed by the Government. This could happen if an abstract motion proposing an increase were amended against the wishes of the Government so as to advocate a greater increase. The Government might not then be able to proceed at once with their effective motion and until they did so there would be no basis for making greater deductions from Members' salaries. Salaries would then have to continue to be paid at the existing rates. However, I very much doubt whether that situation would be likely to last for any length of time.

8.45 p.m.

I believe that my hon. Friend has done the Committee a service by pursuing the matter and tabling the clause. Although the restoration of this freedom to hon. Members to discuss their salaries in terms of an abstract motion does not mean that they will be able effectively to vote themselves an increase, in that an abstract motion will still require to be backed by an effective resolution carrying the Queen's recommendation, it is still an important matter to restore to hon. Members the freedom that many of them thought they enjoyed. They have been deprived of it only by reason of a legislative accident. It is to cure the results of that accident that I am happy to move the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.