§ Amendment made: No. 13, in page 2, line 25, leave out ' (if any) '.—[Mr. Brittan.]
§ Mr. OgdenI beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 26, at end insert
' Or to a grant of one month's salary for every year of service as a Member of the Assembly (and pro rata for every part year of service, whichever is the greater.'.
§ The Chairman (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)With it we may also take amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, at end insert
' provided that such grant shall first have been provided for Members of the House of Commons.'.
§ Mr. OgdenThe purpose of the amendment is to try to ensure that the severance pay provided for should have some relationship to the length of service in the European Assembly. The Leader of the House made a similar point in the recent debate on the salaries of Westminster Members. He said that he hoped that in the discussions that were to take place the severance pay of Members here would be related to the severance pay of people outside, in terms of years of service.
I am suggesting nothing new. Almost all private employers and public corporations in the United Kingdom link the amount they pay upon retirement or redundancy with the length of service. The situation could arise in this Parlia- 1216 ment and under this Bill in which a Member or a Representative could be elected to the Assembly for one month, lose his seat in the next European election and receive three months' salary. Another person with five, 10 or 20 years' service would, upon losing his seat, receive the same amount. I propose that he should receive one month's pay for every year of service.
§ Mr. BrittanI wish on this occasion to express sympathy with the comments of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden). Clause 2 provides for severance pay for Members of the European Parliament on the same terms as apply to Westminster Members who lose their seats at a general election. The whole question of the way in which severance pay should be calculated for Members of Parliament here is currently under review by the Review Body on Top Salaries, and it is expected that that point will be covered in a report to be published later this year.
§ Mr. EnglishThe Minister seems to be answering the argument for sub-amendment (a) which has not yet been moved. Perhaps he could deal with the principal amendment first.
§ Mr. BrittanI am dealing with the argument of the hon. Member for West Derby, who appears to be content. It would be wrong to pre-empt the Review Body's consideration by accepting an amendment now. If the Boyle committee recommends a scheme which is substantively different and it is implemented by a resolution of the House in respect of Westminster Members, the Government will have to consider the consequences for Members of the European Parliament.
§ Mr. MarlowIs it possible that if we accept the amendment the Boyle comittee might decide that it is suitable for Members of this House?
§ Mr. BrittanThat is equivalent to saying that we should vote first and consider afterwards. That is not sound. If it is useful to have the Boyle committee, we should examine what it recommends and then decide whether we like it. The House remains able to reject the recommendations of the Boyle committee or any other committee. We should at least 1217 see what it has to say, particularly since we are discussing a report which is to be published later this year. For now, the Government's recommendation for the European Parliament is right and we should not support the amendment.
§ Mr. StoddartI hope that I may discuss amendment (a) which I have tabled to amendment No. 14. This is a precautionary amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) is advocating a dangerous principle. He proposes that the European Assembly should lead our salaries and conditions of service. The reverse should apply. We should lead European conditions and salaries, as we have done so far.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has not been in the House long enough to know that Governments make promises which they cannot always keep—because of wage freezes, for example. We might find that we give a concession to the European Assembly which the Government, because of a difficulty, cannot accord to us.
My hon. Friend's amendment should not be passed without my precautionary amendment. I urge my hon. Friends to accept it.
§ Mr. Graham PageThere is some merit in the amendment and the amendment to it. If the Boyle committee recommends an improvement in our payments in this respect, it will be necessary to introduce a new Bill to include Representatives of the European Assembly. But such an improvement could be brought into operation for us by resolution. If we pass the amendment and the amendment to it, such a change could come into operation automatically if we decided that it should apply to our salaries.
§ Mr. OgdenI hope that the Minister will consider carefully the wise words of his right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page).
My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) is concerned about the relationship between this House and the other Assembly, which he clearly does not want to be thought more important. At this stage, I could not care less whether this House leads or lags behind Members of the European Assembly in salaries. 1218 The Minister said that we should not preempt Boyle. The Boyle committee spends a great deal of its time writing to Members of Parliament asking for advice.
I would be more willing to accept the Minister's advice that we should leave the matter to Boyle if he would give me an undertaking that if Boyle comes up with a proposal for one month's pay for every year of service, or a better system than we have at present, he would at least try to persuade his colleagues in the Government to accept it.
Anyone who has been present for most of the debate will have realised that I am using it to argue not only the case for Members of the European Parliament but also our own case. Whether we lead or lag behind, I could not care less; whether we pre-empt Boyle or limit it, I could not care less. It is a reasonable argument for us to put forward. On the basis of custom and practice outside the House, one month's pay per year of office is not unreasonable.
§ Mr. George CunninghamWhen the Minister replies to this point, perhaps he will clear up the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). If we were talking about the pension of a Member of the European Parliament, clearly the point raised by the right hon. Member for Crosby would not arise, because clause 3 of the Bill will give the Secretary of State carte blanche to alter the pension arrangements by means of an order, and an order subject to negative approval in this House, but the three month's provision dealt with in clause 2 is actually specifically built into the Bill in those terms.
It seems to me that the important point is this. If the House were to decide to put the three months' grant on a different basis for Members of this House, would that require fresh legislation? If it requires fresh legislation to deal with our own stuation, clearly that fresh legislation can equally make a consequential amendment to clause 2 of the Bill. If we can alter the termination grant, or whatever it is called, for ourselves by means other than legislation, clearly it will be awkward to have arrangements for the Members of the European Parliament frozen in this Bill.
1219 We understand the problems. It will be difficult to settle this matter in the next minute or two. But if it were necessary to make an amendment at a later stage—that is, in the House of Lords—it would be worth looking at. The last thing that one wants is to have to amend by pri[...] legislation for the European Parliament [...] be done for ourselves by a less formal device.
§ Mr. BrittanThe position with regard to our own severance pay is that it can be altered by resolution of the House, whereas my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is quite right to say that legislation would be required for the European Members. None the less, I think that all sorts of things could be recommended by Boyle that might have consequences for European Members. It is fair to say that in a sense the legislation is of an interim character. Although there is no obligation for a uniform system of elections or anything of that kind to be achieved by 1984, none the less that will plainly happen sooner or later, so that we are legislating for this time round more than anything else.
If the Boyle committee makes a recommendation on the lines envisaged and if that proves acceptable to the House, the Government will certainly consider seriously the implications for European Members. I think that we should leave it at that for the moment.
§ Mr. Graham PageIt seems to me so unnecessary that, if we accept it to apply to ourselves, if Boyle so recommends, we should have to come back for a statute to alter it for the European Assembly. Can the Minister give us an assurance that he will think again about this? If he does not like the idea of this proposal coming into operation automatically by the resolution, as it would according to these amendments, will he introduce the order procedure into this clause, as, indeed, he has in the very next clause in the Bill? It would be so simple to give the Secretary of State power by order to alter the severance payments in that way. It would be an order that we could discuss in the House, in [...] 1220 Minister foresees alterations in pensions in the next clasue.
§ Mr. EnglishMy hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said that it would make a great difference if the grant had to be amended by statute or if we could alter our own House of Commons sever[...] [...]ay by mere resolution. But, as I understand it, sub-amendment (a) merely says that the amendment should only apply
provided that such grant shall first have been provided for Members of the House of Commons".It does not say anything about its being provided by statute or resolution. It merely rests upon a matter of fact. If it has happened, however it happened, whether by statute, order or resolution, the condition applies. However, I do not think that that is the important point. Is there any particular reason why this should not apply for the moment and then later, if we wish, we can change it?
§ 1.15 a.m.
§ Mr. BrittanI must confess that I am extremely reluctant to give any support to the idea of legislating now in respect of something that may or may not be recommended, and may or may not commend itself to the House after it has been recommended. I shall certainly look into the point raised by my right hon. Friend with regard to the structure of the Bill, but I do so without any commitment at this stage.
§ Mr. OgdenSurely it can be made more simple than that. Either hon. Members have a rough idea that they want to keep the three months as it is for everyone, regardless of the length of service, or they think that it is reasonably fair that severance for this House or the European Assembly should be made on the basis of length of service. If that is so—that our practice here and in the European Assembly should be very much the same as outside—there is the other difficulty that European Members should not get it until we have got it. If both the amendments were accepted, Members of the European Parliament would not get it until we got it.
The last objection is that we should not pre-[...] Boyle. Boyle spends a great 1221 deal of time asking for our opinion. Let us tell him our opinion tonight by simply saying that those who are concerned enough to be here—some more willingly than others—have said "We think there should be a better severance arrangement than there is and we think there should be a better pension arrangement than there is, but Members of the European Assembly should not get it unless and until we have had it here." That is perfectly simple. If it is not introduced for British Members of Parliament, it would not be introduced for them. If Boyle wants to change anything later, he can make his own proposals.
§ Mr. George CunninghamI think that the Committee would do well to leave this matter with the Minister to think about it again on the basis suggested by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). The difficulty about my hon. Friend's suggestion is that it would deal with the situation if precisely the arrangement mentioned in his amendment was the one that was later adopted by ourselves, but it would not deal with the situation whereby some slight modification of that arrangement was adopted for ourselves. Therefore, we are not preempting what we are deciding here but are providing for something to be imitated for the European only if it happens to be precisely as stated here in my hon. Friend's amendment. I do not think it is an effective way of doing this by
§ means of amendment No. 14 and sub amendment (a).
§ I urge the Minister seriously to consider, before the Bill receives Royal Assent, the possibility of applying to clause 2 the arrangements that apply to clause 3. After all, the termination grant is one of the features of the pension arrangements. If the other features of the pension arrangements are subject to order, there is no reason why that particular feature should not be subject to alteration by order, although, I hope, subject to affirmative approval by the House.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ The ChairmanDoes the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) wish to have a separate Division on amendment No. 19?
§
Amendment proposed: No. 19, in page 2, line 31, at end add: —
'(3) This section shall not apply to a person who immediately before the end of the five year period was entitled to receive a salary pursuant to any resolution or combination of resolutions of the House of Commons relating to the remuneration of Members.'.—[Mr. R. C. Mitchell.]
§ Question put, That the amendment be made: —
§ The Committee divided : Ayes 13, Noes 93.
1223| Division No. 60] | AYES | [1.20 a.m. |
| Cryer, Bob | McKay, Allen (Penistone) | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Marlow, Antony | |
| Cunningham, George (Islington S) | Marshall, Jim (Leicester South) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford) | Proctor, K. Harvey | Mr. R. C. Mitchell and |
| Dormand, J. D. | Skinner, Dennis | Mr. David Stoddart. |
| English, Michael | Spearing, Nigel | |
| NOES | ||
| Alexander, Richard | Dorrell, Stephen | Lawson, Nigel |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Lee, John |
| Earry, Hon Anthony | Dover, Denshore | Le Merchant, Spencer |
| Best, Keith | Faith, Mrs Sheila | Lester, Jim (Beeston) |
| Bevan, David Gllroy | Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) |
| Bright, Graham | Forman, Nigel | Lyell, Nicholas |
| Brinton, Timothy | Fox, Marcus | Macfarlane, Neil |
| Brittan, Leon | Gardiner, George (Reigate) | MacGregor, John |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Garel-Jones, Tristan | Major, John |
| Brown, Michael (Brlgg & Sc'thorpe) | Gorst, John | Mather, Carol |
| Buck, Antony | Gow, Ian | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| Budgen, Nick | Gower, Sir Raymond | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin |
| Bulmer, Esmond | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) | Mellor, David |
| Cadbury, Jocelyn | Hawkins, Paul | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Carlisle, John (Luton West) | Hawksley, Warren | Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch) |
| Chapman, Sydney | Heddle, John | Mills, Iain (Meriden) |
| Colvin, Michael | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham) | Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester) |
| Corrie, John | Hooson, Tom | Murphy, Christopher |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Myles, David |
| Dean, Paul (North Somerset) | Johnston, Russell (Inverness) | Neubert, Michael |
| Dodsworth, Geoffrey | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Newton, Tony |
| Osborn, John | Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire) | Ward, John |
| Parris, Matthew | Stradling Thomas, J. | Watson, John |
| Pollock, Alexander | Tebblt, Norman | Wheeler, John |
| Rathbone, Tim | Thompson, Donald | Wickenden, Keith |
| Rhodes James, Robert | Thornton, George | Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery) |
| Shaw, Michael (Scarborough) | Trippier, David | Wolf son, Mark |
| Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) | Viggers, Peter | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Silvester, Fred | Waddington, David | |
| Sims, Roger | Wakeham, John | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Speller, Tony | Waldegrave, Hon William | Mr. Robert Boscowen and |
| Squire, Robin | Waller, Gary | Mr. John Cope |
| Stevens, Martin |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 3 Ordered to stand part of the Bill.