HC Deb 20 July 1984 vol 64 cc646-70

Question again proposed.

11.22 am
Mr. Tony Banks

I shall wait for the task force to disappear before resuming my speech.

I was trying to point out a little earlier that the working environment in this place militates against hon. Members doing an efficient and proper job for their constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith described most graphically the circumstances under which he found himself working in the Cloisters where there is no privacy, and where clearly hon. Members cannot have discussions on the telephone with constituents or others. That leads to the subject of provision for our staff. There are no facilities in the Cloisters, for example, for additional staff. I work in a small room in the Cloisters. I suppose that I should be grateful for the fact that I am in a room rather than in an open corridor, but there are four desks crammed in that room.

The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) who questioned me about county hall might be interested to know that there are larger lavatories in county hall than there are rooms in the Cloisters in which we work. If the Government turn those lavatories into offices, I can think of a few suitable candidates on the Conservatives Benches to use them.

Members of Parliament do not rate highly in the public sympathy stakes. We did ourselves a grave disservice when we came to the House immediately after the June election and had a full debate on our salaries. We inflicted something of a self-injury when we discussed those salaries without fully discussing resources. We voted ourselves — not all of us but collectively — salary increases at the expense of our staff. That was disgraceful. Of all people, politicians should be aware of the need for good timing, if nothing else.

Mr. Dykes

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the main problem in that debate in July after the independent suggestion made in June before the election was that everyone had agreed that this time round there would be no tampering with the independent recommendation? That was solemnly agreed in writing, as opposed to many occasions recently when frustrating results were produced. Bearing in mind that most other Parliaments have an automatic mechanism for increasing salaries which is outside the control of their Members, does he agree that that is the line along which we should proceed?

Mr. Banks

I believe that we have it partially right now in so far as there will be a linkage with regard to pay. The timing was all wrong. The difficulties in which the Government no doubt felt themselves by accepting the full recommendations were enormous. That could clearly be understood.

We must address ourselves to how we appear to those outside this place. It did not look good, immediately after a general election, whatever the justifications, for us all to be talking about our pay and conditions. It would have been far better timed if that debate had taken place before the election. During the course of the election campaign, we could then have answered the points that would have arisen. It seemed as if Members of Parliament were, first and foremost, looking after their own interests.

We are not assisted by the press, which is always ready to make snide remarks about Members, some of which are perhaps justified, but many of which are not. Timing is of the essence, and I believe that the timing of our last debate was utterly wrong.

Unfortunately, because of that bad timing, we were unable to give close attention to what I believe to be the equally important matter of resources and facilities necessary to enable hon. Members to do their job properly.

Before my election to the House, I worked for the Association of Broadcasting and Allied Staffs. I should have been appalled if I had gone to that job and been told that I would have £12,000 or whatever, but that I had to find my own secretary, office, office equipment and all the other things necessary to do the job. That is what happens to Members of Parliament. It is a crazy and downright inefficient way to work.

Many people do not know what happens to the £12,000 that we receive currently. Unfortunately, some seem to suggest that it is nothing more than an addition to salary. I should like to give the 1984 budget for my office. You will be relieved to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is relatively short.

My office is based in Newham, North-West because, as one of the Conservative Members said, all problems are in the constituency, I, therefore, want my office in my constituency. I have a full-time assistant working in that office. The salary and national insurance contributions come to £8,360. I pay the rent, rates, telephone and so on, which come to £2,400. I have a photocopier, and, with paper costs, that amounts to £433 a year. A further £1,500 goes on office equipment, secretarial help and helpers' expenses. That brings me to a total of £12,693. It goes well over our present limit. The balance comes from my salary. I am not complaining about that; I am just saying that even for the relatively modest effort I can put into my office in Newham, that £12,000 is woefully inadequate. My office has to deal with hundreds of constituency matters a month because of the problems of an inner city. We cannot cope unless we have more full-time staff.

I believe that it would be dangerous to give Members of Parliament a substantial increase in cash allowances for administrative expenses. It is well known that some Members use those allowances to supplement their own incomes. Perhaps they need to do so but it is wrong and it should not be condoned. Members should be able to select their own personal staff for all the obvious political reasons, but those staff should be on the payroll of the House. All Members should have separate offices. Perhaps we should make this place a museum and build a proper purpose-built legislature somewhere else, perhaps outside London, which would provide conditions that would enable Members to work properly.

I believe that each Member should be entitled to three staff workers, which would be a mixture of researchers and secretaries. All those workers should be on properly negotiated salary scales. There are strong moves within the House to have proper negotiations for individual workers who work with Members. The range of salaries paid varies enormously and I hope that Members will realise that trade union organisation is as relevant in this place to those who work for Members as it is to those outside.

Members should be able to claim separate expenses for a constituency office and full-time staff. The disposition of staff between Westminster and the constituency should be left to the individual Member.

All office equipment should be drawn from the House and returned to it when a Member leaves. It should not be paid for from an annual amount. There would be many advantages in operating such a system because the House could negotiate some advantageous prices for equipment and arrange service contracts.

I have done some costings that are based on a Member having three staff and the sort of equipment that I believe would provide an efficient office. That equipment would include a computer, a teleprinter and the most advanced technical equipment. The cost would be about £45,000 per Member. When that is multiplied by 650 the total is about £27 million. I understand that that is not a figure Members would be ready to receive as an amendment to the motion. Although it sounds rather large, I put the figure to the House because I believe it is a reasonable one if we are to enable Members to have the sort of offices that they should be running on behalf of their constituents.

I do not believe in fifth-form conspiracy theories, although there are many fifth formers on the Conservative Benches. There is clearly a breadth of feeling on both sides that one of the reasons for Members not being given adequate resources is that they would become far too troublesome to their own Front Benches. That can probably be said about both parties when in government. There is a constitutional theory that Members are here to control the actions of the Executive. That might be the constitutional theory, but we know it to be constitutional bull. Individual Members do not stand a dog's chance of controlling the Executive. However, efficient and well-supported Members could keep a Government on their toes. That is why successive Governments have denied us the opportunuty to operate effectively.

We claim to know how to run the country. A few more people might believe us if we proved that we knew how to run our own affairs more efficiently. I shall be supporting the amendment and I hope that it will be supported by Conservative Members. I give notice that there will be a great move within the House among Members on both sides to start increasing secretarial and research allowances to a level which will enable us to be effective in a modern legislature.

11.35 am
Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)

I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate, especially as new Members were almost frozen out of the debate that took place early in this Parliament on Members' salaries and allowances.

When I came to this place from industry, it was my wish and desire that my secretary, who had worked with me for many years, should come here. She was a highly paid and very efficient young lady. We could have just about managed to match her salary in industry, but when she saw the terms and conditions under which, and in which, she would have to work I was not able to persuade her that she could look forward to money and a lovely life in Parliament.

I feel sorry for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, because he has drawn a very short short straw. Newly elected Members arrived in this place 12 months ago and they were full of ideas. I remind the House of a well-known novel and film entitled "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". I am sure that all hon. Members will recall the plot; a perfectly sane person is taken into an asylum and he finishes up more mad than the original inmates. I give notice that I have no intention of becoming one of the cuckoos in that context.

It is right that Members should be allowed to express the view that we shall not put up with the terms and conditions which have prevailed historically in this place, especially when the specious argument is advanced that if we are dissatisfied there are thousands of others who want to come here to take our places. If that argument is taken to its illogical conclusion, we would come here without pay, and we would probably pay a premium to do so, as used to be the practice in solicitors' offices and in the theatre many years ago. That would be wrong and it is wrong that we support secretaries or research assistants out of our own pockets. The state should accept that duty and responsibility.

I spent 25 years in industry, not wishing to become a civil servant. I am now a Member of Parliament, and I still do not wish to become a civil servant. I do not wish to be in any way hogtied to the Civil Service's terms and conditions of employment. I do not see why my secretary has to be adjudicated against a secretary in the Civil Service. I know many people in the Civil Service, my son works in Whitehall, and I have not seen many secretaries in Whitehall working at 8 o'clock, 9 o'clock, 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock at night as many Members' secretaries do so that they can carry out our work more effectively.

Many of us have constituencies which are a long way from London. We have oriented far too much on London. All the thinking is done within London and most civil servants live in or near London. I find that there are few of them in my patch in the north-east of England.

Our role as Members is not that of Members before the war and it is not even that of Members immediately after the war. Our role nowadays is very different. I am asked frequently, now that I have been a Member for more than a year, "How do you find life being a Member? How do you like it? Are you enjoying it?" Various questions are asked, including, "What do you do?" I agree with Lord Peyton that there is no job description for a Member of Parliament. Some Members will do more than others. However, the tendency is to have more full-time Members who are devoted entirely to working for their constituency, constituents and party. If that is to be done properly when a Member represents a constituency that is a long way from London, it is necessary to have a constituency office that is manned properly. There are inconveniences, because it is not possible properly to monitor the local radio station or the local television station if one is domiciled here with a constituency 257 miles away, as mine is. That means that I have to pay someone to monitor for me. If I cannot afford to pay my secretary a proper wage to work with me in London, there is not a great deal of money left at the end of the day to pay someone to work for me in my constituency.

The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) mentioned advertising. We have our printing and stationery supplies. In many instances we have to pay for our postage, because we have to guard against overstepping a narrow line when we send out letters which could be judged politically wrong in the way we address people. Members of Parliament have to buy their own typewriters. I wonder how many civil servants have had to pay £1,000 to buy a typewriter for the secretaries in their offices anywhere around this area. I wonder how many of them have to pay an annual premium of approximately £100 to ensure that the typewriter is maintained and serviced properly. Typewriter ribbons have to be bought and Members must put up with the inconvenience of hiring a typewriter if their own goes wrong. No civil servant does that. Why should we be welded to the Civil Service in that way?

It has been suggested that 12 months ago we had a debate in which Members' salaries and allowances and car mileage were discussed. I believe that we should have had another debate along those lines today, but this debate is about only two elements, and not about Members' salaries. We shall be in an embarrassing position as long as we have to come to the Chamber time and time again to plead to do the job that we are expected to do. Often, members of the public are misled into believing that we have a great operation, with masses of secretaries and electronic back-up. A moment ago I was handed a piece of paper telling me that I had a telephone call to take outside. If I were in industry I would have a little bleeper, and that bleeper would have bleeped. I would have been able to make a telephone call and saved an earnest and nice gentleman from running around the whole place all day with bits of paper trying to find out whether I was here. I believe that the civil servants are against such small electronic aids and therefore do not allow us to have them.

I spent 25 years in industrial relations worried about terms and conditions of employment for all sorts of people. Little did I know that one day I would have to come here and make a special plea on behalf of my colleagues. I am in a slightly advantaged position in that I am the third oldest of the Members who were elected last year for the first time. I had retired before I became a Member of Parliament. That means that I am in an independent position and can say things which some of my younger hon. Friends cannot say without the embarrassment of making special pleadings.

It is wrong that we are debating the secretarial allowances as four fifths of one relevant percentage. Next year it will be five fourths of another relevant percentage, and the year after it may be two fifths of an irrelevant percentage. All the time we have this mumbo-jumbo which defies easy reading so that we can determine what our secretaries and research assistants should be paid and how many we should have. The amount paid should be adequate to enable the job to be done properly. I do not accept the argument put forward by one of my hon. Friends that we should not equate ourselves with the American Congress. Why not? England is the mother of Parliaments, and we should be in a position to give a lead to the American Congress. If it is right for Congress to have proper resources, it is right for us to have them as well.

Historically, wives of Members of Parliament were expected to react and act rather like vicars' wives and doctors' wives or any other lady in a similar position. They had to be working consorts, without individuality. That is wrong. Some Members' wives do many jobs in constituencies for which they are not remunerated or paid in the same way as doctors' wives. That aspect should be examined.

I did not agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when he said that he felt a great swell of feeling on this measure during the debate 12 months ago. What he felt by way of a swell was the Back Benchers saying, "We do not want what you are seeking to impose upon us. We did not ask you to go away and find something else to impose upon us. We told you that we did not want what you told us you would do." I believe that the same circumstances apply today, and that is evidenced by the number of hon. Members who have spoken or who wish to speak in this debate. We do not want this scheme, any more than we wanted the last scheme, because all these schemes are specious.

At the moment we have a relatively equitable position. I have not heard too many hon. Members complain about the present system. If there was that groundswell of feeling, then, like all the stories that one reads in the press so frequently, I have missed out. That is unfair to me as an individual. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will tell us his evidence, apart from the groundswell of revulsion against the Government's proposals 12 months ago, from Back-Bench or even Front-Bench Members on both sides of the House that they want a massive change in the way in which the car mileage system operates. I do not believe that there is that feeling. It is true that 12 months ago we rejected those proposals. This is another way of coming back at us and introducing proposals which we do not want.

I shall go into detail with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about his proposals. I suggest to him that if the House were mindful enough today to be silly and pass these proposals—I know that the "payroll" is here and not listening—we would do the wrong thing.

The motion refers to cars of 1300 cc or less More than 1300 cc and not more than 2300 cc More than 2300 cc". Mine is a 2.3 litre car, so I am at the top of the limit. The report recognised that fact and talked about 2301 cc or 1999 cc.

Mr. Beith

I hope that the hon. Gentleman checks his car carefully. He may find that it is 2299 cc. A great many cars are expressed in that way and fall just beyond the limits which the Government have proposed.

Mr. Holt

I am grateful for that intervention. I take as honest the figure written on the back of my car, which says 2.3 litres. I am sure that most right hon. and hon. Members would make exactly the same honest appraisal.

Mr. Forth

The real problem is that many British-made cars are expressed in that way. They say 1290 cc, and will come under the 1300 cc level. If one wanted to trade up, many might say that the best way—I do not agree—is to go for a Japanese car of 1400 cc and obtain the advantages of economy. In a sense, that might well be an incentive to buy non-British.

Mr. Holt

I take my hon. Friend's point. The serious element that I wished to point out is that those figures are specious and in many ways irrelevant. Car engines vary. Perhaps it would be better if we did not specify those figures.

My constituency is 257 miles away. It is a fairly large area, and my mileage for my first year as a Member of Parliament has been greater than 50,000 miles. That is not unusual. I identify those details only because I am more aware of the facts of the mileage I have done. Many of my colleagues represent constituencies in the north-east of England. I remind those responsible that beyond London are the north-east, the north-west, Scotland and other areas, and we should take them into consideration.

Cars depreciate very rapidly, and people doing the mileages to which I have referred need to change their cars frequently. I do not accept the argument that it is better to buy an older second-hand car, because the maintenance charges today are excessive.

We should not have to be involved with "bull rings," mileages and "specials". As I am no longer associated with industry, I do not put myself in the same category as, for example, salesmen working for Crosse and Blackwell or Mars. The most important thing that salesmen do every day is to work out their mileage and car allowances to submit to the sales manager. That is not the way in which I want to do my job as a Member of Parliament.

I cannot believe that it is seriously intended that when I leave my garage at my home in my constituency and drive the 11 miles to my constituency office I must on each occasion write it down, and then say whether I returned home immediately or called in at the Conservative club for a drink on the way back. Who knows whether that is parliamentary business? I might have been meeting some people on quite important business [Interruption.] Always drink and drive within the limit. [Interruption.] If I were drinking and needed to be driven, as I did last night—[Interruption.] Who pays the car allowance for the person who kindly gives one a lift in that context? Does one have to ask that person to lift up the bonnet of the car to find out the cubic capacity so that one can properly fill in the return and keep busy the bureaucrats who sit in the Fees Office working out exactly what hon. Members should or should not be putting in their mileage claims?

There is nothing in the provisions for car mileage allowance that should commend itself to any thinking Member of this House. Those who go into the Lobby to support the motion will not have thought about it; they will merely have gone into the Lobby because that is part and parcel of their job. Today we have a free vote—or so I am told. Let us see some hon. Members exercising their freedom of mind when going into the Lobbies.

I find myself in a very difficult position. I cannot support the amendment tabled by the Liberal party, because I do not think it is the right amendment. We should be opposing all the proposals and telling the Government not to put such proposals before the House. This is not what we want. We want to be treated as honourable Members of Parliament. We want to be given a mileage allowance with the least possible amount of bureaucracy when we submit our claims. We do not want to have to sit down with our diaries, stopwatches and log recorders, and then have to worry about which car had been used and on what day.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins

My hon. Friend argues that we shall have to sit down with our diaries and various other aids to work out our expenses under the proposed system. How does he work out his mileage without consulting his diary? Members have to work out roughly how many miles they travel in their constituencies. I set my trip meter and record the mileage in that way.

Mr. Holt

I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not appear to understand what is involved in the proposals. At present we have a form dealing with what might be called rough mileage. When we first come to this House, we go to the Fees Office and fill in a form to determine our exact mileage, so that in future we have only to say that we have made a journey from here to our home or to our constituency. It is the mileage within the constituency that is a matter of dispute or debate.

What will happen on the day when my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) forgets to set his trip meter? I am sure that he will guess the mileage, just as any other hon. Member would. His intervention underlines the fallacy of the proposals.

I hope that hon. Members will not support the motion dealing with the office, secretarial and research allowance. I hope that hon. Members will support the amendment, because at least it goes in the right direction, although not as far as I should like it to go.

I hope that hon. Members will not accept the proposals concerning car mileage allowance, because they are monstrous.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

Order. I remind the House that the debate must finish at 12.38 pm

11.56 am
Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)

I hope that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) pays greater attention to detail in assessing his drinking limit when driving than he seems to have done in assessing the cubic capacity of his car. I would hate to find that he faces the same disappointment on the former as I know he will face on the latter when he looks at his log book.

I should like first to make a few comments on the motion concerning the Lord Chancellor's salary. I find it somewhat peculiar that the Leader of the House should be defending the preservation of those very traditional differentials that he, among others, berates trade unionists throughout the country for trying to preserve and observe. The Opposition will not oppose the motion. I only wish that the extra income to be paid to the Lord Chancellor could in some way be reflected by higher efficiency within his Department.

Not many people in this House realise the size of the Lord Chancellor's Department. The legal side of Civil Service activities absorbs twice as many civil servants as the old Department of Industry used to absorb—16,000 as compared with 8,000. If the Lord Chancellor's increase were reflected in efficiency, one would expect that perhaps the reply to the Commission on Legal Services would have emerged from that Department sooner than the four years that it took for the Government to respond to only half of the propositions that were within the commission's report.

We are being asked to vote extra money to a Minister who is not answerable to this House of Commons and is only vicariously answerable to it. The Attorney-General answers questions at the Dispatch Box allegedly on behalf of the Lord Chancellor, although the Attorney-General is not even in the same Department. Often he has to answer questions from hon. Members by saying that he will draw their comments to the attention of his noble and learned Friend.

If we are voting extra money for the Lord Chancellor, we should also try to ensure that there is a greater degree of parliamentary scrutiny. That could be done by the establishment of a Select Committee. That was at one time proposed but the proposition was carefully killed off. It is about time—I say this as a non-lawyer and I am sure that it is sacrilegious to lawyers in all parts of the House—that we reviewed the organisation within Parliament for dealing with our control and scrutiny of a critically important sector. I suspect that we have inherited a system that no longer matches the needs of this House in terms of parliamentary accountability.

I congratulate the Leader of the House on enabling us to have a debate on the office, secretarial and research allowance and the car mileage allowance at this time, when a considerable number of hon. Members have been able to take part. We have a tendency to want to discuss such matters sub rosa, and I can understand that. We know how embarrassing it is to have to come to this House continually to moan about our pay and about the expenses available for our secretaries and so on. At some stage, Government—of whichever party—will have to find a system that avoids the ritualistic nonsense that we find so embarrassing and leads to public misunderstanding. Sometimes that misunderstanding is fuelled by broadcasts made by hon. Members who seem to pursue publicity in these matters rather than being concerned with the accuracy of what they say.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), when I first came to the House my total territorial claim on its space was one of the little cupboards in the Corridor between the Members' Lobby and the Library of the House of Commons. My first desk was obtained by my having to squat on one of the tables in the Corridor above the Aye Lobby. Eventually, by established pattern, I was then able to persuade the Serjeant-at-Arms that, since I was there continually with my papers, I should be provided with a filing cabinet so that the cleaners could do their work properly. We have faced such nonsense as we have gradually evolved a more appropriate range of expenses and services for hon. Members.

The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to the Companies Acts. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) says that we are lucky to be here, and that it is an honour. Of course that is true, but it does not justify ignoring for ourselves and those who work for us the factory and office laws that we have passed for the rest of the community. No one is disputing our unique privilege to be here, however transient our stay. I say that as one who has always been in a marginal seat. However, we should not allow that to deflect our attention from the fact that while we are here we should try to do our job as effectively as possible and demand the services and facilities that enable us to do so on behalf of our constituents.

I support the move to link the rate of change of pay of our secretaries to the Civil Service, although I am not sure whether we are doing them a kindness. If they had had that linkage, our secretaries would have been worse off because in the past four years the Civil Service has seen its income rise by 20 per cent. less than the rise in the cost of living, whereas in general our secretaries have managed to keep in line with the rise in the the cost of living.

I support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs). I congratulate him, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Conservative Members who spoke in support of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea said—I am sure that he said it jocularly—that he suspected that there was collusion between the Front Benches to deprive the Back Benches of information and to ensure that Back Bench Members were so busy looking for information that they had no time to be mutinous towards the Front Benches. All that I can say is that if there has been such collusion and if that were the objective, it seems to have signally failed on both sides of the House.

As my hon. Friend rightly said, we as a Parliament work longer hours and have a longer parliamentary year than any other Parliament in the Western world. Our case load would not be accepted in many other Parliaments. The requirement of a researcher in addition to a secretary that my hon. Friend specified is not a particularly immodest request. I should have thought that it was almost a basic requirement. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the amendment not because it is necessarily the right figure, as my hon. Friend said, but because it shows that we as Members are determined to do properly the job for which we were elected and want the resources and facilities to enable us to do so.

If new Members do not stand up now and protest, they will become inured to the system and battle weary, like the Leader of the House and myself. After 20 years' struggling one eventually thinks that this is the norm and the way that things should be done. If one is not careful, one becomes romantically attached to surviving in deprivation when trying to do the work for which one is elected. We are asking not for pay for ourselves but for resources to do the job that we are here to do. It is encouraging to see so many new Members in the Chamber. I hope that while they still remember what civilised conditions in industry and commerce are like, they will strike a blow for not just this generation but future generations of hon. Members.

With regard to the car allowance, some hon. Members have said that the 39p a mile upper limit is high. When I look at the congestion in the Car Park, I think that it might be a better idea to have an extra category of offering hon. Members 50p a mile not to bring their cars here. I should like to canter a hobby horse of mine. Hon. Members should be warned that their passes are not an absolute privilege. Some hon. Members show scant regard for their colleagues by parking their cars so that they prevent others from moving theirs. They also give their passes to their secretaries, so that our floors become blocked up with their cars.

I understand, as the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said, that there is a dispute about whether we should have a single or a split rate. This is a personal view. It makes sense to try to relate the expenses paid to the cost that we incur. If we look at what is implicit in the scales, we see that the RAC is saying that it costs between 18p and 39p a mile to run a car. If there is such a range, it is unjustified to overpay some hon. Members by about 7p a mile, if we take the middle rate as the standard rate, while underpaying other hon. Members by 14p a mile. That does not make sense if we are trying to establish a logical basis for our costs and expenses.

There must be bands as the scheme has to be administratively workable, as the Leader of the House rightly said. The Fees Office has had to be closely consulted because eventually it will have to administer the system. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) seemed to fall into a logical trap. He felt that there was a temptation to hon. Members to move up market because there were three bands for cars, and his solution was to have four bands. All that does is put more people at the margin of a band. Many more people would find it to their advantage to change their car and shift from one band to another. I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman was trying to make, but his solution does not meet in any way the requirements that he is setting.

Mr. Beith

My preferred solution is not to proceed with the scheme at all, but, if we do, it would be unjust if it were not banded in something like the way that I suggest.

Mr. Williams

I do not see that the unjustice arises, but that is a personal view. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to express his concern on the matter in the Lobby.

The ceiling of 20,000 miles in respect of the allowance seems perfectly rational. The figures of 18p, 25.9p and 39p contain an element for depreciation. One reaches a stage where the mileage that one is doing more than covers the depreciation. We as Members of Parliament tend to drive abnormal mileages:in a year, so the RAC's assessment on a 10,000 mile basis would not be relevant to us because I doubt whether many hon. Members do as small a mileage as that.

Like the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), I have a constituency that is 200 miles away so that means that one often does a round trip of 400 miles in a single day. I do not go along with the argument that we should all be forced into using small cars. If we have to provide a bus service for ferrying our familes up and down the motorway, together with their luggage and the kitchen sink, it is for us to determine what car is appropriate for our work.

Mr. Bermingham

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fatigue and safety factor should also be taken into account in deciding on the type of car needed for long-distance driving? Is he aware that research shows that the use of a larger capacity engine cuts fatigue and enhances safety in long-distance driving?

Mr. Williams

That is absolutely true. That is the ergonomics of car design. Larger cars are designed for long-distance travel. By driving to Swansea and back, I put in a full day's driving work in addition to my normal day's work. Other hon. Members have to drive even greater distances. If we undertake distances that lorry drivers must, not exceed and then begin a day's work on top of that, it is scarcely self-indulgent to wish to travel in comfort and safety.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) asked me to draw attention to the amendment in her name, which has not been moved but about which she has written to the Leader of the House. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will comment on that, as some hon Members recently made car purchase decisions before they became aware of the proposed changes in allowances.

In conclusion, there has been virtually unanimous support for the Opposition amendment to increase the secretarial allowance. I hope that we shall take that unanimity to its logical conclusion and walk together into the same Lobby on this non-party, House of Commons matter.

12.11 pm
Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester, East)

I find myself in some difficulty on this matter. One does not have to be old to be a rebel. It is just as easy when one is young. It is regrettable that every year we have to discuss whether sufficient finance is available. I should much prefer a linkage arrangement which could then be dealt with year by year along the lines of the Civil Service system.

I represent a marginal constituency, and I must confess that I find it difficult to cope within the £12,000 allowed for secretarial and research assistance. For some reason, I seem to attract 60 to 80 letters per day, so I need a full-time secretary. I appreciate that some hon. Members share secretaries because they cannot cope on the present allowance. That is very worrying. I should also like secretarial help in my constituency. I have an office there, but I do not have a secretary. I try to run things from here, but that is not satisfactory. The little help that I have in my constituency has to be paid for out of my salary. In passing, it should be made absolutely clear that the £12,000 is not an addition whacked on to our salaries. It has nothing to do with our salaries.

There is thus some attraction for me in the Opposition amendment to increase the secretarial and research allowance to £17,000. The danger about that is that if all that extra research assistance became available the Table Office would be inundated with additional written and oral questions, which is not the result that we seek. Many of us receive offers of research assistance from people at the universities, but the people whom one can really trust are surely those who work in the Library, which provides an excellent research service.

I am most concerned about how we should proceed and how to make ends meet. I understand that this is to be a free vote, but I noticed a fair proportion of the payroll vote outside the Chamber, so one may assume that the Government resolution will be passed and that at least an extra £437 will be available. Nevertheless, I hope that further improvements can be made. I do not think that every hon. Member should be entitled to an allowance of £17,000. It should be subject to full justification. Moreover, I believe that a certain sum should be set aside exclusively for secretarial help and another sum for research. Having been associated with research work in the House 10 years ago, I can confirm that there have been great improvements in research facilities, access to the Library, and so on. I recall that the payment in those days was scarcely rewarding, but that is no criticism of the Members concerned. The money was simply not available. The Opposition frequently accuse Conservative Members of having two jobs, but one can understand the reason, given the inadequacy of the current secretarial and research allowance.

There are major difficulties about the mileage allowance. As I have said many times, the House is the guardian of the public purse and we must not be seen to be taking advantage of a system from which people outside cannot benefit. I appreciate the intention behind the bandings proposed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I am not convinced that the aim will be achieved. The allowance will cover wear and tear on the particular type of car. I believe that this will encourage hon. Members to go for gas-guzzlers—to buy up rather than to buy down. As the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said, one needs a reliable vehicle for long journeys on motorways. Nevertheless, we should not encourage hon. Members to purchase larger cars. We should encourage the use of the middle-of-the-road type of car. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but it is clear from the debate that many of them have to look at the back of their cars to discover the engine capacity. That being so, we might do better to retain the present system and have an allowance of 25.9p per mile irrespective of capacity. The mileage, of course, must always be justified, but a standard rate seems the simplest proposition.

If we adopted a linked system, we should avoid the need to come back each year, cap in hand, to see if we can do a little better. Certainly, I do not think that debates of this kind improve our standing outside. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West referred to my comment that it is an honour to be a Member of this House. I genuinely mean that. Reference has been made to hon. Members lacking proper facilities and being given just a little locker. I have such a locker. [Interruption.] I hear someone commenting that I could probably get inside it. Fortunately, however, I also have a desk. We must accept the facilities available and make the best possible use of them. We also need the best possible secretarial and research assistance.

I urge my right hon. Friend, however, to reconsider the mileage allowance. I do not believe that the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), has found the right solution. I understand, too, that the Inland Revenue is waiting in the wings to jump on us if we continue with a standard rate of 25.9p per mile, but I still think that that is the best system. I repeat that it is an honour and a privilege to be here. We need a larger secretarial allowance, but we should retain the present mileage allowance system.

12.20 pm
Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley)

I support the amendment on the secretarial allowance. This is not additional money for Members of Parliament themselves; it is additional money to enable us to do our job properly. Many Members of Parliament feel frustrated because they cannot adequately deal with the problems of their constituencies. They do not have sufficient financial resources to do so.

It should be up to us to determine how the £12,000—or £17,000, as I hope it will be—should be used. The Member should decide whether he needs a secretary in his constituency, a secretary in the House, a research assistant, and so on. I also recognise the fact that the questions of advertising, advice bureaux and what equipment is needed will vary from Member to Member. In my view, however, £12,000, even with the marginal increase proposed by the Leader of the House, is insufficient to allow an hon. Member to do the job properly, as we all wish to do. The package of deals brought in last year did not deal with the problem properly. Unfortunately, a proposal which would have provided more money was not accepted. I hope that we will make amends today.

Hon. Members should be able to offer their staff reasonable pay and conditions. Twelve thousands pounds is not adequate to employ a full-time secretary and a part-time assistant at London rates, when one bears in mind national insurance contributions and other additional expenses. I believe that if an hon. Member is to do his job properly, a full-time secretary and half a research assistant are the minimum that he needs. Even with £17,000, we would not be over-resourced or over-provided. That would be the minimum.

I have no objection to the proposal that the allowance should be indexed in some way so that in future years we would not need to debate these difficult issues here. Members' pay could be treated in the same way. However, we must be sure that the base is correct before we devise a formula to take account of the need for uprating each year.

The amendment would be a step in the right direction. I intend to be a full-time Member of Parliament. I have no other sources of income. I depend on my allowances to enable me to do my job. At present, I cannot do the job as adequately as I would wish, because I do not have the means to employ a research assistant.

The question of mileage allowance is very complex. Before I heard the debate I was prepared to support the Liberal amendment. That seemed to be a reasonable compromise. Having listened to the debate, I feel inclined to vote against all the proposals before us, because I do not believe that we have found the solution. If the motion and the amendment are defeated today, I hope that the Leader of the House will think again and bring forward a better system.

Mr. Beith

In case the hon. Gentleman does not succeed in finding enough hon. Members to join him to defeat both proposals, should he not take the precaution of voting for the Liberal amendment?

Mr. Pike

I shall bear that suggestion in mind.

It is difficult to find the right formula. I recognise that the situation varies considerably between constituencies, and that the question of the distance between the constituency and London is very important. Hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies are in a far worse position than I am, with my constituency in north-east Lancashire, but London Members are in a different situation again.

Last week I looked at a map of the constituencies when I was considering the mileage limits. I had thought that my constituency was a reasonable size, but some of the constituencies in the south-west and in Scotland and Wales are considerably larger.

When thinking about the distances which hon. Members may have to travel to do their constituency business, I became somewhat concerned that the upper limit of mileage for the higher rate of allowance might be totally wrong in some circumstances.

I am dubious about the higher mileage allowance for cars of over 2300 cc. We are told that matters will balance out and that in theory a Member with a large car will not be in a better financial position than the Member with a car in the middle range. That may be so, but I know that with the higher allowance I could afford to run a car of over 2300 cc. Without that allowance, I could not afford to do so. There is an encouragement for Members, therefore, to upgrade their cars and buy a petrol-guzzler. In a time of energy conservation, it is not sensible to give Members that encouragement. We must think about that more carefully.

I would find it attractive to run a larger car than I need. My car is a 1600 cc Cortina Crusader estate. I can travel down the motorway in comfort, cruising comfortably at around the speed limit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I chose my words with care. There is no need for me to run a larger car. I hope that the Leader of the House will think again and bring forward a more sensible proposal.

12.27 pm
Mr. Biffen

First, may I say to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) how much I appreciated the fact that he ensured that the debate did not pass without reference to the resolution concerning the Lord Chancellor. I shall ensure that my noble Friend knows that he has the benediction of the House. I fear that he may not be too excited at the idea of a departmental Select Committee for his office, but I am pleased that the House should have seen the force of the argument in respect of that resolution.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs). In my household, the secretarial allowance is a matter of more than domestic concern. I came here today feeling sympathetic but, alas, no more than that.

The hon. Gentleman and many of my colleagues have essayed a very interesting argument. A case can certainly be mounted for more facilities for hon. Members, although many people will doubt whether the provision of more facilities has a very direct impact upon our effectiveness. The matter has been debated over many years. However, the debate has now widened to include a new idea—that of improved facilities for the Member in his constituency. It might be asked why there should be a London rate for an element of a pay package which relates to help in the constituencies. I make that point only to demonstrate that we are facing a complex series of arguments which will be fiercely contested, and which cannot be resolved this morning. Although—

Mr. Tony Banks

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Biffen

I have less than 10 minutes. The hon. Gentleman is a great addition to the House—I hope that that will help him.

What is being proposed is an increase in allowances of about 40 per cent. That is a rather formidable proposition for a Friday morning. We take comfort from the fact that the Government have said that they accept the Top Salaries Review Body proposal that, every four years, there should be a fundamental review of our allowance structure. Th. s morning we should console ourselves with the modest but nonetheless tangible advantages that the Government's motion offers.

Motor mileage has attracted the most protracted controversy. I understand that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) could not be here to move her amendment and I appreciate the chivalry of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West in standing in. The amendment would pay the present rate, which is higher than the proposed rate, for cars under 1.3 litres, to any person who had purchased that car before 20 July. I should be an immediate beneficiary as I do most of my constituency work in a Mini. Hon. Members have exchanged their motoring experiences this morning and I thought that I had better get mine out of the way, especially as they are so unprepossessing as compared with the experiences and styles of others—not least my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). I do not believe that that rabbit will run as it would confer an extraordinary advantage quite fortuitously according to the date of purchase and would establish a principle and precedent that would be an endless fascination to all of those who watch how we handle our affairs, not least in respect of ourselves.

The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) moved the amendment that provided the core of the debate. His amendment would divide into two the middle rate of the allowance proposed by the Government. One would apply to cars between 1,301 cc and 1,600 cc and another for cars between 1,601 cc and 2,300 cc. I understand the consideration that prompted him to take that view and have given it careful consideration but, on balance, I have concluded that the Government cannot accept it for two reasons. First, there is a balance to be struck between the improved accuracy of a greater number of tiers and the administrative complexity of the new scheme. The complexity would be increased if the hon. Gentleman's amendment were adopted.

Secondly, and more significantly, the amendment proposes that while the rate payable to Members who drive cars between 1,601 cc and 2,300 cc should increase, the rate for the 1,301 cc to 1,600 cc category should remain at 25.9p, as specified in the Government's proposal. That would introduce an inconsistency. The 25.9p was arrived at by applying the formula that was used by the inquiry team to engine sizes across the range from 1,301 cc to 2,300 cc and taking an average. If it is to apply only to cars between 1,301 cc and 1,600 cc it should, on the basis of that formula, be reduced to 22.9p. Failure to make that reduction would mean that Members who drive cars in that category would be reimbursed more than the cost and could therefore find themselves subject to demands for income tax on the profit element. I do not believe that that would be acceptable. That is not merely a pedantic point—it goes to the heart of our dilemma.

We are currently in line with a truncated Civil Service formula. The formula with which we were identified previously moved without difficulty. It then became a two-tier mileage formula and the automatic link was not proceeded with because the House reacted sharply against it. We have remained merely with the top figure of the Civil Service arrangements. There is a real likelihood that it would be considered taxable by the Inland Revenue in those circumstances. It is therefore essential for the House to have a system in which the cost of motoring is more or less matched by the allowance. That is why the variables of engine size and of mileage are central. The proposal is drawn from external evidence supplied by the Royal Automobile Club and is therefore entirely justifiable to the public.

We must always remember that we live in a goldfish bowl and that the arrangements that we strike in regard to our expenses will quite properly be monitored by a world outside. In that context, it is thought appropriate to have a 25,000-mile check. I have heard what the House has said and realise what deep feeling there is. As I am not in the least interested in driving bull-headed through these matters, I can give an undertaking. I should like to examine the matter again with colleagues in the light of what has been said so that we can ensure that administration of the scheme is sensible and does not bear the remotest relationship to the Star Chamber image that a few of my hon. Friends drew. I do not deny their enthusiasm. This place exists only on a sense of decent and honourable relationships. It is not intended that there should be such a scorching monitor. I take account of the strong feelings on the matter and shall examine it again.

Over the years, we have had a multi-tier system of motor mileage and a single-rate system. I do not feel so confident that what is being advanced today will never be beyond question or recall, but the proposals before the House today are a practical attempt to resolve what could be a difficult problem for us. They have been constructed in the light of evidence that has been proffered by the Peyton report and in the light of where the effective monitoring and evidence falls with the RAC arrangements. On that basis, I think that we can be fair to ourselves and fair to the public.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 52, Noes 95.

AYES
Alton, David Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) Holt, Richard
Beith, A. J. Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Bermingham, Gerald Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Janner, Hon Greville
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Bruce, Malcolm Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Bruinvels, Peter Lawler, Geoffrey
Cartwright, John Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Crowther, Stan Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Dalyell, Tam McWilliam, John
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l) Pavitt, Laurie
Deakins, Eric Pike, Peter
Dicks, Terry Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Dobson, Frank Sims, Roger
Dover, Den Snape, Peter
Dubs, Alfred Soley, Clive
Evans, John (St. Helens N) Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Forth, Eric Straw, Jack
Foulkes, George Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Franks, Cecil Tracey, Richard
Freud, Clement Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Gale, Roger Williams, Rt Hon A.
Galley, Roy Young, David (Bolton SE)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak) Tellers for the Ayes:
Hayes, J. Mr. Tony Banks and Mr. Chris Smith.
Hind, Kenneth
NOES
Ancram, Michael Howard, Michael
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y) Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Berry, Sir Anthony Lang, Ian
Biffen, Rt Hon John Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Bottomley, Peter Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia Lilley, Peter
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon Macfarlane, Neil
Brooke, Hon Peter MacGregor, John
Bryan, Sir Paul MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)
Butler, Hon Adam Marland, Paul
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Mates, Michael
Cash, William Mather, Carol
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Colvin, Michael Miller, Hal(B'grove)
Cope, John Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Couchman, James Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Currie, Mrs Edwina Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. Moore, John
Durant, Tony Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Eggar, Tim Needham, Richard
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim) Nelson, Anthony
Fraser, Peter (Angus East) Neubert, Michael
Garel-Jones, Tristan Newton, Tony
Goodlad, Alastair Nicholls, Patrick
Gow, Ian Normanton, Tom
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Hayhoe, Barney Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Heathcoat-Amory, David Patten, John (Oxford)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Pollock, Alexander Stradling Thomas, J.
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover) Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Rhodes James, Robert Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas Thornton, Malcolm
Robinson, Mark (N'port W) Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela Trippier, David
Ryder, Richard Viggers, Peter
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy Waddington, David
Scott, Nicholas Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) Waller, Gary
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') Watts, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) Wheeler, John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) Whitney, Raymond
Squire, Robin Wolfson, Mark
Young, Sir George (Acton) Mr. Douglas Hogg and Mr. John Major.
Tellers for the Noes:
That, in the opinion of this House, the limit on the allowance payable to a Member of this House in respect of the aggregate expenses incurred by him for his Parliamentary duties as general office expenses, on secretarial assistance and on research assistance should be determined as follows—
5 (a) for the year ending with 31st March 1985, the limit should be the amount obtained by increasing £12,000 by four-fifths of the relevant percentage,
10 (b) for any subsequent year the limit should be the amount obtained by increasing the limit applicable to the immediately preceding year by the relevant percentage (so that, if the relevant percentage for any year is nil, the limit remains the same for that year), and for the purposes of this paragraph the limit applicable to the year ending with 31st March 1985 shall be taken to be what it would have been if in paragraph (a) above the words 'four-fifths of had been omitted.
In this Resolution 'year' means a year ending with 31st March, and for the purposes of this Resolution—
15 (i) the relevant percentage for any year is the percentage by which the amount of salary (exclusive of allowances and overtime) payable for that year to a person in the Home Civil Service at the maximum point on the scale for Senior Personal Secretaries and in receipt of inner London weighting exceeds the corresponding amount for the immediately preceding year;
20 (ii) any fraction of a pound in the amount obtained under paragraph (a) or (b) above for any year shall be treated as whole pound if it is not less than 50 pence, but shall otherwise be disregarded.
Mr. Speaker

We now move to motion No. 2, which is to be moved formally.

5 That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the rates of the car mileage allowance payable to Members travelling on Parliamentary duties and the rates applicable to the car mileage allowances payable in respect of journeys by the spouse of a Member and journeys by persons in respect of whom the secretarial and research allowance of a Member is payable—
(1) The allowance payable in respect of a journey commenced in the period beginning with 1st October 1984 and ending with 31st March 1985 shall be payable—
10 (a) subject to the limit specified in paragraph (3) below, at the rate per mile shown in column 2 of the following Table in relation to the engine capacity of the vehicle used for the journey; and
(b) in respect of miles in excess of that limit, at the rate per mile shown in column 3 of that Table in relation to that engine capacity.
TABLE
Engine capacity Mileage up to Limit Further mileage
15 1300cc or less 18p 11.3p
More than 1300cc and not more than 2300cc 25.9p 14.7p
More than 2300cc 39p 19.5p
20 (2) Paragraph (1) above shall have effect in relation to journeys commenced in the year beginning with 1st April 1985 and each subsequent year with the substitution, for the rates shown in the Table, of rates calculated, on the principles exemplified in Appendix I to the Report of the Independent Inquiry, from the figures in the edition of the Royal Automobile Club's Schedule of Estimated Vehicle Running Costs published in or about the April of the year in question.
25 (3) For the purpose of this Resolution the limit on the number of miles in respect of which car mileage allowance may be paid at the rate specified in column 2 of the

Question accordingly negatived.

It being more than three hours after the first motion had been entered upon MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order [18 July] to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the motion and the motions relating to car mileage allowance and Parliament.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

Motion made, and Question proposed,

Table shall be 10,000 miles for the period beginning with 1st October 1984 and ending with 31st March 1985 and 20,000 miles for the year beginning with 1st April 1985 and for each subsequent year.
30 (4) Arrangements shall be made for ensuring that claims made for car mileage allowance in respect of miles travelled in excess of 25,000 miles in any year are supported by particulars of the journeys to which the claims relate.
(5) In this Resolution—
35 'the Report of the Independent Inquiry' means the Report of the Independent Inquiry into Motor Mileage Allowance for Members of Parliament to the Leader of the House of Commons (House of Commons Paper No. 469 of Session 1983–84);
'year' means a year beginning with 1st April.—[Mr. Biffen.]
Mr. Clement Freud (Cambridgeshire, North-East)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

I would rather put the Question first. Does the hon. Member wish to move the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald)?

Mr. Freud

No, Sir. On a direct point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that when the House considered the Lloyd's Bill, members of Lloyd's were persuaded not to vote on it.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I shall deal with that matter later. Is it directly involved with this motion?

Mr. Freud

It is directly involved. In the case of the mileage allowance, will you rule whether Ministers who are supplied with cars and have no direct interest in the mileage allowance be instructed whether they are allowed—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I can put the hon. Member right on that. This is a matter of public policy and Ministers have every right to vote

I understand that the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Thurrock is not to be moved. I call the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) to move his amendment.

Amendment (a) proposed to the Question, to leave out lines 16 and 17 and insert—

'More than 1300 cc and not more than 1600 cc 25.9p 14.7p
More than 1600 cc and not more than 2300 cc 29p 14.7p'

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 15, Noes 95.

Division No. 420] [12.49 pm
AYES
Alton, David Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Beith, A. J. Sims, Roger
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) Straw, Jack
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Bruce, Malcolm Young, David (Bolton SE)
Crowther, Stan
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Tellers for the Ayes:
Hayes, J. Mr. John Cartwright and Mr. Clement Freud.
Hind, Kenneth
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
NOES
Ancram, Michael Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y) Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Brooke, Hon Peter
Berry, Sir Anthony Bryan, Sir Paul
Biffen, Rt Hon John Butler, Hon Adam
Bottomley, Peter Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Cash, William Nelson, Anthony
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Neubert, Michael
Colvin, Michael Newton, Tony
Cope, John Nicholls, Patrick
Couchman, James Normanton, Tom
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Dover, Den Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Durant, Tony Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Eggar, Tim Patten, John (Oxford)
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim) Pollock, Alexander
Fraser, Peter (Angus East) Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Garel-Jones, Tristan Rhodes James, Robert
Goodlad, Alastair Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Gow, Ian Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Greenway, Harry Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) Ryder, Richard
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Hayhoe, Barney Scott, Nicholas
Heathcoat-Amory, David Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Howard, Michael Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Lang, Ian Squire, Robin
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Stradling Thomas, J.
Lilley, Peter Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant) Thornton, Malcolm
Macfarlane, Neil Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
MacGregor, John Trippier, David
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) Viggers, Peter
McWilliam, John Waddington, David
Marland, Paul Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Mates, Michael Waller, Gary
Mather, Carol Watts, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian Wheeler, John
Mellor, David Whitney, Raymond
Miller, Hal (B'grove) Wolfson, Mark
Mills, Iain (Meriden) Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James Tellers for the Noes:
Moore, John Mr. John Major and Mr. Douglas Hogg.
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Needham, Richard

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 100, Noes 30.

Division No. 421] [12.59 pm
AYES
Ancram, Michael Cash, William
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y) Colvin, Michael
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Cope, John
Bermingham, Gerald Couchman, James
Berry, Sir Anthony Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Biffen, Rt Hon John Durant, Tony
Bottomley, Peter Eggar, Tim
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon Foulkes, George
Brooke, Hon Peter Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Bryan, Sir Paul Garel-Jones, Tristan
Butler, Hon Adam Goodlad, Alastair
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Gow, Ian
Greenway, Harry Newton, Tony
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) Nicholls, Patrick
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael Normanton, Tom
Hawkins, C. (High Peak) Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Hayhoe, Barney Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Howard, Michael Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Patten, John (Oxford)
Janner, Hon Greville Pavitt, Laurie
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Pollock, Alexander
Lang, Ian Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel Rhodes James, Robert
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Lilley, Peter Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant) Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Macfarlane, Neil Ryder, Richard
MacGregor, John Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) Scott, Nicholas
McWilliam, John Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Marland, Paul Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Mates, Michael Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mather, Carol Snape, Peter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Mellor, David Squire, Robin
Miller, Hal (B'grove) Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Mills, lain (Meriden) Stradling Thomas, J.
Mitchell, David (NW Hants) Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James Thornton, Malcolm
Moore, John Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) Trippier, David
Needham, Richard Viggers, Peter
Nelson, Anthony Waddington, David
Neubert, Michael Wakeham, Rt Hon John
That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the rates of the car mileage allowance payable to Members travelling on Parliamentary duties and the rates applicable to the car mileage allowances payable in respect of journeys by the spouse of a Member and journeys by persons in respect of whom the secretarial and research allowance of a Member is payable—
(1) The allowance payable in respect of a journey commenced in the period beginning with 1st October 1984 and ending with 31st March 1985 shall be payable—
(a) subject to the limit specified in paragraph (3) below, at the rate per mile shown in column 2 of the following Table in relation to the engine capacity of the vehicle used for the journey; and
(b) in respect of miles in excess of that limit, at the rate per mile shown in column 3 of that Table in relation to that engine capacity.
TABLE
Engine capacity Mileage up to Limit Further mileage
1300cc or less 18p 11.3p
More than 1300cc and not more than 2300cc 25.9p 14.7p
More than 2300cc 39p 19.5p
(2) Paragraph (1) above shall have effect in relation to journeys commenced in the year beginning with 1st April 1985 and each subsequent year with the substitution, for the rates shown in the Table, of rates calculated, on the principles exemplified in Appendix I to the Report of the Independent Inquiry, from the figures in the edition of the Royal Automobile Club's Schedule of Estimated Vehicle Running Costs published in or about the April of the year in question.
(3) For the purposes of this Resolution the limit on the number of miles in respect of which car mileage allowance may be paid at the rate specified in column 2 of the Table shall be 10,000 miles for the period beginning with 1st October 1984 and ending with 31st March 1985 and 20,000 miles for the year beginning with 1st April 1985 and for each subsequent year.
(4) Arrangements shall be made for ensuring that claims made for car mileage allowance in respect of miles travelled in excess of 25,000 miles in any year are supported by particulars of the journeys to which the claims relate.
(5)In this Resolution—
'the Report of the Independent Inquiry' means the Report of the Independent Inquiry into Motor Mileage Allowance for Members of Parliament to the Leader of the House of Commons (House of Commons Paper No. 469 of Session 1983–84);
`year' means a year beginning with 1st April.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

Motion made, and Question put, That the draft Lord Chancellor's Salary Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.—[Mr. Biffen.]

The House proceeded to a Division:—

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) (seated and covered)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It seems that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is to be a Teller in a Division on a motion which is exclusively concerned with the salary of his father. That seems inappropriate, to say the least. I could say more. Is it possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to permit that situation to be changed before we vote?

Mr. Speaker

That matter was raised by another hon. The motion relates to a matter of public policy and it is perfectly in order for any Member to cast his vote.

The House having divided: Ayes 108, Noes 14.

Division No. 421] [12.59 pm
AYES
Ancram, Michael Cash, William
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y) Colvin, Michael
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) Cope, John
Bermingham, Gerald Couchman, James
Berry, Sir Anthony Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Biffen, Rt Hon John Durant, Tony
Bottomley, Peter Eggar, Tim
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon Foulkes, George
Brooke, Hon Peter Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Bryan, Sir Paul Garel-Jones, Tristan
Butler, Hon Adam Goodlad, Alastair
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Gow, Ian
Greenway, Harry Newton, Tony
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) Nicholls, Patrick
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael Normanton, Tom
Hawkins, C. (High Peak) Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Hayhoe, Barney Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Howard, Michael Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) Patten, John (Oxford)
Janner, Hon Greville Pavitt, Laurie
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Pollock, Alexander
Lang, Ian Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel Rhodes James, Robert
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Lilley, Peter Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant) Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Macfarlane, Neil Ryder, Richard
MacGregor, John Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) Scott, Nicholas
McWilliam, John Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Marland, Paul Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Mates, Michael Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mather, Carol Snape, Peter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Mellor, David Squire, Robin
Miller, Hal (B'grove) Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Mills, lain (Meriden) Stradling Thomas, J.
Mitchell, David (NW Hants) Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James Thornton, Malcolm
Moore, John Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) Trippier, David
Needham, Richard Viggers, Peter
Nelson, Anthony Waddington, David
Neubert, Michael Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Waller, Gary Wolfson, Mark
Watts, John Young, Sir George (Acton)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Wheeler, John Tellers for the Ayes:
Whitney, Raymond Mr. John Major and Mr. Douglas Hogg.
Williams, Rt Hon A.
NOES
Alton, David Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW) Marlow, Antony
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes) Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Bruce, Malcolm Pike, Peter
Bruinvels, Peter Sims, Roger
Corbyn, Jeremy Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)
Dalyell, Tarn Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Dicks, Terry Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead) Straw, Jack
Forth, Eric Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Freud, Clement Young, David (Bolton SE)
Hayes, J.
Holt, Richard Tellers for the Noes:
Hughes, Simon (Southwark) Mr. A. J. Beith and Mr. John Cartwright.
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Lawler. Geoffrey
Division No. 422] [1.10 pm
AYES
Amess, David Holt, Richard
Ancram, Michael Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble) Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y) Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset) King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Berry, Sir Anthony Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Biffen, Rt Hon John Lang, Ian
Bottomley, Peter Lawler, Geoffrey
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Boyson, Dr Rhodes Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon Lilley, Peter
Brooke, Hon Peter Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Bruinvels, Peter Macfarlane, Neil
Bryan, Sir Paul MacGregor, John
Butler, Hon Adam MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Marland, Paul
Cash, William Mates, Michael
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Mather, Carol
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Colvin, Michael Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Cope, John Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Couchman, James Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Currie, Mrs Edwina Moore, John
Dicks, Terry Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J. Needham, Richard
Durant, Tony Nelson, Anthony
Eggar, Tim Neubert, Michael
Forth, Eric Newton, Tony
Fraser, Peter (Angus East) Nicholls, Patrick
Garel-Jones, Tristan Normanton, Tom
Goodlad, Alastair Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Greenway, Harry Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom) Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Patten, John (Oxford)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael Powley, John
Hawkins, C. (High Peak) Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Hayes, J. Rhodes James, Robert
Hayhoe, Barney Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Heathcoat-Amory, David Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Hind, Kenneth Ryder, Richard
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Scott, Nicholas Tracey, Richard
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) Trippier, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') Waddington, David
Sims, Roger Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) Waller, Gary
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset) Watts, John
Squire, Robin Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton) Wheeler, John
Stevens, Martin (Fulham) Whitney, Raymond
Stradling Thomas, J. Wolfson, Mark
Sumberg, David Young, Sir George (Acton)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V) Tellers for the Ayes:
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N) Mr. John Major and Mr. Douglas Hogg.
Thornton, Malcolm
NOES
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham) Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Beith, A. J. Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)
Bruce, Malcolm Snape, Peter
Cartwright, John Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Corbyn, Jeremy Young, David (Bolton SE)
Dalyell, Tam
Foulkes, George Tellers for the Noes:
Freud, Clement Mr. Peter Pike and Mr. Tony Banks
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Simon Hughes

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I just briefly pursue the matter that I raised during the Division? I cast no reflection on the hon. Member for Grantham, who plainly finds himself in a difficult position, as he is the duty Whip. I am sure that when the matter was arranged he did not know that he would be on duty. Hon. Members sometimes find themselves called to vote upon or adjudicate upon the vote—in this case it was someone in the Aye Lobby — on matters which affect them personally, which this clearly does, because under the laws of inheritance the hon. Member will benefit from his father's increased money. It is a matter that can arise in relation to a few Members of the House during this Parliament and I am sure that it arises in other Parliaments as well. There is some anxiety as to whether such Members should vote, and it would be helpful if your guidance could be given now or at a convenient time.

Mr. Speaker

I can give it to the hon. Member now, and I give it in the serious tone in which he raised the matter. On any matter of public policy it is perfectly in order for any hon. Member or Minister to cast his vote. On the previous matter when the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) raised the subject of the car mileage allowance, I ruled that this was a matter of public policy. That is the answer to the hon. Member. He will find the reasons for it set out fully in "Erskine May".