Members' Office, Secretarial and Research Allowance

HC Deb 16 July 1986 vol 101 cc1130-43 12.12 am

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen)

I beg to move, That, in the opinion of this House, the first Resolution of 20th July 1984 (limit on office, secretarial and research allowance) should have effect as if—

1. (a) the limit for the year ending with 31st March 1986 had remained at £13,211, and
2. (b) the relevant percentage for the year ending with 31st March 1987 were 6 per cent.

Mr. Speaker

I have selected both the amendments on the Order Paper: that in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) — in paragraph (a), to leave out remained at £13,211" and insert "been £19,000.". — and that in the name of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) — in paragraph (b), leave out "6" and insert "18".

It may be for the convenience of the House if the amendments are debated with the motion, and I ask the respective hon. Members to move them formally at the end of the debate. Is that for the convenience of the House?

Hon. Members

Yes.

Mr. Biffen

The House will have seen the answer which I gave last Thursday to a question from my hon. Friend, the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) about the secretarial, office and research allowance, which, for convenience, I shall now refer to as the secretarial allowance.

The answer had two elements to it. The first, and wider, element was the announcement that I had written to the chairman of the Top Salaries Review Body, inviting it to carry out the four-yearly review of the level and structure of the secretarial allowance as I had previously undertaken to do.

The second, and narrower, point dealt with the uprating of the allowance for this year. That is the point which concerns us tonight. It is the reason why that I have put this motion before the House. I intend, therefore, to confine my remarks to the annual uprating, although I will of course ensure that our proceedings tonight are also referred to the TSRB for consideration.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

Will my right hon. Friend say why he writes to the Top Salaries Review Body when, whenever it reports, the Government consistently ignore its recommendations?

Mr. Biffen

I have communicated with the TSRB because I was asked to do so by many right hon. and hon. Members.

I should say a few words about the two amendments, both of which have been selected. The amendment in the names of the hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) accepts the proposed percentage increase in the current year of 6 per cent., but they would set aside the size of the allowance determined by the arrangements which the House confirmed in 1984, and replace it with a substantially higher figure.

This deals with an issue which I know is of concern, and legitimately so, to a number of Members. However, it invites debate not about the interim uprating figure but about the size of the allowance itself. I feel that this should really be a matter for the Top Salaries Review Body, and I very much hope that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury will submit to it the evidence which he believes sustains such a figure. I do not feel that this should be part of this evening's decision.

The amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and the hon. Member for Battersea deals more directly with the interim uprating before us today. It would provide for an increase of 18 per cent. in the allowance for the current year. In the course of my remarks on the resolution, I shall indicate why I believe that a 6 per cent. increase is preferable to the larger increase proposed in this amendment.

I turn now to the resolution itself. At present, the arrangements for the secretarial allowance are as agreed by the House on 20 July 1984. That resolution followed the TSRB recommendation that the annual percentage increase in the secretarial allowance should be the same percentage increase as for the salary plus inner London weighting for a civil servant at the maximum point of the senior personal secretary scale. The advantages of automatic uprating are manifest. It enables the House to devise a formula by which the level of the allowance should be determined, and then allows that to be put into practice without the need for a further debate each year. There has been general support for that view.

However, the most careful linkage plans are nonetheless capable of producing unintended perversities. The House has to react in a spirit of equity and common sense. Members will recall, indeed, that this occurred relatively recently in relation to the motor mileage allowance, which was also set by a mechanism of linkage.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald (Thurrock)

As the Leader of the House is no doubt aware, press reports have suggested that the secretarial research allowance could form part of a Member's salary. In his reply, will he say that it does not form part of our salary and that it is administered in such a way by the Fees Office that that is, in fact, impossible?

Mr. Biffen

It is absolutely clear that the secretarial allowance does not form part of a Member's salary and any press comment suggesting that it does was misconceived. The rates payable to Members in respect of the motor mileage allowance were tied to those applicable in the Civil Service. Then, in July 1983, considerable disquiet was expressed by Members about the changes implicit in continuing that link, because of the way in which the Civil Service rates had been restructured. It was felt this inflicted an unintended disadvantage upon Members. As a consequence—

Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)

Is not the debate about the secretarial allowance and not Members' car allowances, which is irrelevant?

Mr. Biffen

I can understand that my hon. Friend may not appreciate the line of argument, which is that linkage is very valuable. If linkage produces perverse consequences which have been detrimental to Members, there has been no shortage of voices saying that the linkage should be set aside. As I was saying, as a consequence the linkage formula was set aside and eventually the House confirmed an alternative system mainly based upon the recommendations of Lord Peyton and his aides.

In the case of the secretarial allowance, again it is the restructuring within the Civil Service which would produce a distortion of the intended arrangements.

Mr. Jack Straw (Birkenhead)

Will the Leader of the House accept that the perversity arises from the Government's proposal and not from the system? When Lord Plowden wrote to the right hon. Gentleman on 16 May 1984, he said that the allowance should be linked to the salaries of senior personal secretaries whose work we consider to be broadly analogous in terms of quality to the type of secretarial support generally required by MPs. The restructuring to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred has been required as a result of negotiations because it has been accepted that those secretaries need a significant increase in their salaries. If they need a significant increase in their salaries, why do our secretaries not?

Mr. Biffen

If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall cover that point, A rise is not going to Civil Service grades in actual pay as would be suggested merely by the alteration in scale.

Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith)

There is a linkage to senior personal secretaries, and they have not been regarded in their structure. Their proficiency has been included in their grading as a recognition of work change as a result of word processors and other technology. There has been no restructuring of the grade, and there is a clear understanding of that within the Civil Service.

Mr. Biffen

I take that point.

Early this year, there was a restructuring of the pay of secretarial grades within the Civil Service. Part of this restructuring involved the withdrawal of proficiency allowances and their consolidation into pay scales for senior personal secretaries. It had the effect of increasing the maximum point of the senior personal secretary scale by about 12 per cent., including inner London weighting. In fact, however, scarcely any senior personal secretaries gained an increase of this size as most of them had been receiving proficiency allowances. Many received no increase.

The difficulty with the secretarial allowance link arises from the terms of the 1984 resolution. This based the uprating solely on the increase in the salary scale as such, and took no account of allowances. Indeed, allowances and overtime were excluded from the calculation as they tend to vary between individuals and years, and complicated what was intended to be a relatively simple pay link. Thus we have the perversity that the increase in the relevant Civil Service pay scale affects the proposed percentage increase in the secretarial allowance whereas the offsetting impact of consolidating certain Civil Service allowances on net pay is disregarded.

Taking into account the 6 per cent. increase in salary scales provided for in this year's Civil Service pay award and whatever adjustment is agreed in respect of London weighting, the automatic uprating would produce an increase of about 18 per cent. in the secretarial allowance in the year beginning of 1 April 1986 compared with the previous year.

Nor would the effects of proceeding—

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

May I ask my right hon. Friend a somewhat academic and vulgar question, the answer to which might be of interest to some hon. Members? The Government feel that it is now appropriate to break the linkage with regard to secretarial allowances, and a certain linkage has been agreed with regard to Members' allowances and pay. What will be the Government's view on that linkage?

Mr. Biffen

The reconsideration of linkage goes no further than the secretarial allowance, and in respect of this year only. Any attempt to suggest or imply that it goes wider than that is mistaken.

Nor would the effects of proceeding with this disproportionate increase be confined to the secretarial allowance for this financial year. Because the increase in the main pay scale for senior personal secretaries took effect from 1 March 1986, there would be an increase in the allowance of £139 for the last financial year.

The resolution therefore seeks to make provision on both these points. First, it would set aside the unanticipated increase in the allowance of £139 for the year ending on 31 March 1986. The secretarial allowance would thus remain at £13,211 for that year, as we expected it to do. Secondly, it suspends the operation of the automatic uprating formula provided in the original resolution for the current financial year. Instead it provides for the secretarial allowance to be increased by 6 per cent. in this year. The allowance would thus rise to just over £14,000 in this year.

The passage of this resolution would in no way prevent the interim uprating from reverting to the formula arrangements provided for in the 1984 resolution in future. Indeed, that is the intention, pending a decision by the House about what the TSRB recommends.

I accept at once that departing from the formula this year involves nominating a percentage increase which must, to some extent, be arbitrary. But the figure of 6 per cent. represents the general pay increase in the Civil Service, and, I believe, is valid on that basis. As I have already said, I will, however, draw the specific attention of the TSRB to the arrangements we have made this year, so that it can be considered as one of its immediate priorities and it can report accordingly.

I have brought forward this motion in a spirit of equity and realism. [Laughter.] It is a view in which I am reinforced, knowing how the House reacted when the motor mileage allowance moved adversely.

Perversities in a linkage formula should not provide substantial hardship or windfall benefit. The operation of the link must be tempered by common sense. I have, also, felt it right that the matter should be settled before we rise for the summer recess. I believe the House would wish for an equitable increase in the secretarial allowance to be made available and capable of being backdated before the House rises. The resolution in my name would allow an increase in the secretarial allowance for this year of 6 per cent.—broadly in line with the overall increase in pay awarded to the grade with which the link was made in 1984. It is a reasonable response to an irksome problem. I commend the resolution to the House.

12.26 am

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney)

This is not the finest hour of the Leader of the House and nor could it be when, stripped of all the verbage, he is inviting the House, not to increase the secretarial allowance by 18 per cent. which would be the automatic consequence of his not introducing the order, but to reduce any increase to 6 per cent. That is the essence of the debate.

Nevertheless, this is a welcome opportunity for the House not only to debate its grossly inadequate secretarial allowance, but to do something in the Lobbies tonight to achieve a long overdue, though modest, increase. The opportunity is all the more welcome because for the first time we are dealing with the issue separately and it is in no way related to the inherently embarrassing question of hon. Members' pay or travel allowance. Whichever way the vote goes tonight—I pick up the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) and Conservative Members — Members of Parliament will not receive a penny more in their hands.

We are debating the level of increase in the so-called secretarial allowance which covers, not only the pay of hon. Members' secretaries, but their office expenses and research assistants. The proper start of the debate is the report of the Top Salaries Review Body under the chairmanship of Lord Plowden which reported in May 1983. He went to some pains to assess what he thought was the proper level of support for Members of Parliament, helped in their task by professional consultants. In his conclusion, Lord Plowden recommended that at June 1983 the appropriate maximum for the allowance available to Members of Parliament for secretarial and research assistance was £13,000 a year. Additionally, the report recommended the introduction of an allowance to meet general office expenses, including necessary capital expenditure on equipment, and that the appropriate maximum for the allowance at June 1983 was £1.000 a year. In total, therefore, the TSRB recommended a £14,000 per annum secretarial allowance for Members of Parliament covering secretarial, research and office expenses from June 1983.

Subsequently, the Lord Privy Seal invited the TSRB to consider how parliamentary allowances might be uprated automatically from year to year to avoid the need for annual parliamentary resolutions. In response, on 16 May 1984, Lord Plowden wrote: Although this allowance is of a composite nature, we think it reasonable to assume that the major part of it will normally be devoted to meeting secretarial costs and so provide for its uprating on this basis. In making our recommendations on the appropriate levels of secretarial support for last year, we took particular account of the salaries of senior personal secretaries in the Civil Service whose work we consider to be broadly analogous in terms of quality to the type of secretarial support generally required by MPs. The Plowden committee recommended, therefore, that the composite secretarial allowance be linked with the percentage increase in salary, plus London weighting, of the named Civil Service secretarial scale, and that automatic increase occurred during the past two years.

The reason why we have this debate tonight and why the increase proposed is not to be automatic, as the House had previously decided, is that, following the abolition of proficiency payments, the pay of the relevant Civil Service secretarial grade to which the secretarial allowance is linked is this year to rise by 18 per cent. What the Government cannot bear is the prospect that the secretarial allowance of Members of Parliament, covering as it does secretarial, research and office expenses, should rise by that amount. They want to renege on the automatic uprating commitment into which they entered in July 1984. That is why they want to reduce the 18 per cent. to 6 per cent.

The House might have some sympathy with the Government if they had carried out the TSRB report in other respects, but they have not and they did not. As Members of Parliament know very well, having received the TSRB recommendations for a total allowance of £14,000 per annum in 1983, and having received a recommendation for a £19,000 per annum parliamentary salary at the same time, the Government rejected the latter part of the report and thus threw the whole TSRB settlement into the melting pot.

There emerged from that, after much effort by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), the then chairman of the 1922 Committee, a compromise which fell substantially short of the TSRB's 1983 recommendation. As a result, the total secretarial allowance was reduced from the £14,000 that was recommended to £12,000 per annum. All the annual upratings of that allowance have proceeded from a base not of £14,000, but of £12,000.

If the Lord Privy Seal's order is carried tonight, the total secretarial and research allowance will reach £14,004 per annum—£4 more than the TSRB thought it right to be paid in June 1983, three years ago. The salary of a senior personal secretary in the Civil Service is now £10,870 per annum. That would leave of the parliamentary allowance a mere £3,134, out of which hon. Members are expected to pay for research assistants and office expenses. It is a ridiculously inadequate sum, and I intend to show why.

It can well be argued that the main component—the pay of secretaries—is itself inadequate, especially when we take into account the inevitably long and capricious hours that Members, by the nature of their work, are obliged to undertake. As for the conditions in which many secretaries have to work, they can be described only as disgraceful. The £3,134 difference between the full parliamentary allowance and the Civil Service secretarial grade becomes a negative figure when we analyse the cost components of Members' other expenses.

Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford)

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the top rate paid to secretaries in Whitehall is £10,230? Whitehall finds it extremely difficult to recruit suitably qualified candidates. What does that say about what we pay our secretaries?

Mr. Shore

The hon. Gentleman makes a most powerful and telling point.

I want to show why we have a negative figure for the residual part of the parliamentary allowance once the secretarial salary has been taken care of. First — I pick up the point made by the hon. Gentleman — Members must find their own contributions, as employers, towards their secretaries' national insurance. On a salary of £10,870 per annum, that would amount to £1,136 in employer's national insurance payments. That reduces the £3,134 allowance difference to £1,998.

Secondly, there are the inevitable office expenses. They were calculated by the TSRB at £1,000 in June 1983. If we applied the retail price index, that would amount to £1,150 today. That reduces the remaining £1,998 to £848. Thirdly, if Members paid their secretaries at the Civil Service comparable level, and financed their office expenses at the Plowden report level, they would have the princely sum of £848 left over to purchase research assistance. That is the main reason why my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) tabled their amendment. I shall support them, just as I supported the similar amendments that they moved two years ago.

The TSRB, in its report, never understood the importance of research assistants. As long ago as February 1980, in its 13th report, the TSRB recommended a payment of £1,250 per annum. That meagre sum, updated over the past six years, would now be £2,190, leaving Members with a minus secretarial allowance of about £1,350 per annum. It is against that background that the automatic 18 per cent. increase that the Government seek to reduce should be judged. An 18 per cent. increase would mean a parliamentary allowance of £15,670. If the TSBR's 1983 report had been adopted, and increases in line with the RPI had been approved, that sum would be £16,140. Therefore, the proposed £15,670 can hardly be thought to be excessive. The Government are not in a position to quibble, for they tabled amendments to accept that part of the TSRB report dealing with secretarial allowance for the debate on 19 July 1983.

We are debating a small and inadequate real increase in the secretarial allowance, but it would allow some minor improvements in what Members are able to pay for secretarial services research and office equipment. I have no inhibition in recommending that we do so. There is no proposal for improving our own rewards, our own standard of living. What is before us is small improvement in the resources we need to do our job more effectively.

We are the most ill-equipped and under-supported democracy in the Western world. The needs of our constituents continue to grow, and the problems of our nation constantly increase. The need for better information to improve Members' vigilance over Government actions and policies is obvious, all the more so when we recall the immense back-up of professional bureaucratic and other expertise that is available to Ministers.

Despite chronic understaffing, our Parliament works effectively and Members of Parliament provide a valuable service to their constituents. but the needs are growing and there is no doubt that we could improve all our activities if we had available to us more adequate secretarial, research and office services. The 18 per cent. is only a pointer in the right direction. Nevertheless, I very much hope that the House will defeat the Government's proposal for a 6 per cent. increase and that it will take the bolder step of supporting the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.

12.40 am

Mr. John Stokes (Halesowen and Stourbridge)

I intervene briefly because, since the last war, I have been concerned in one way or another with salaries and salary administration. I should like to consider the history of this matter.

The need for Members of Parliament to have secretaries is due to the vast increase in correspondence over the past 25 years. There has been also a sharp increase in lobbying by sending hon. Members circulars on all kinds of topics. Many of these letters are typewritten, as are Members' replies. I often think that the typewriter is a curse, as is television. In the days when all communications were written by hand and had to be copied by hand, as in the time of Lord Palmerston and after, people were careful in writing only what was strictly necessary and avoiding the ceaseless verbiage from which we all suffer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This applies to the Civil Service as well. Members of Parliament are subjected also to all kinds of questions about welfare problems which add greatly to correspondence and which are more properly the concern of local councillors.

Nevertheless, a mass of correspondence must be dealt with, and a competent secretary is a necessity for hon. Members. The allowance is designed to cover the cost of a research assistant and office expenses. But, on this matter, I shall displease some hon. Members. I wonder whether all these assistants are strictly necessary. They have led to an absurd increase in the number of written questions, which cost the taxpayer a lot of money and which are seldom read in Hansard or elsewhere.

Of course, we Members of Parliament must scrutinise the actions of the Executive, but we have, after all, an excellent Library in the House of Commons to help us with many of our inquiries. The main job of a Member of Parliament is not constantly to grub about in detail but to make a broad judgment of the facts.

I do not believe that, if all research assistants were to he done away with, the work of the House as a whole would suffer. Some of our most brilliant luminaries —some of whom are not here tonight—have no research assistants and write most of their correspondence in longhand, as I do.

I come to the precise point of the debate. In the past, I have frequently criticised Governments of both parties for their dealings in these matters. Of course, I realise that the job of a secretary here is not the glamorous one that the public think. Secretaries work for long hours, doing hard work and often working for very dull chaps; so it is not quite the exciting job that some people think.

I realise also that the salaries paid here are not as high as those paid in the City and in some parts of industry. Nevertheless, people wish to work here as secretaries. If we omitted from our calculations the cost of those research assistants, the new money proposed of roughly £14,000 a year would cover the cost of a competent secretary, plus the cost of office expenses. Therefore, I believe that, on the whole, the Government deserve our support today.

12.45 am

Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber)

I shall not be long. I have never spoken in one of these debates before. Amused as we may well have been by the Victorian comedy turn that we have just heard, the fact is that this is a disgraceful motion which has been put before us by the Leader of the House.

I have always been told that this is a matter for the House, not a matter for the Government. I have always favoured — many other hon. Members on both sides have—some external judgment, if possible an objective judgment, of those matters, so that they could be implemented and operated automatically. The Top Salaries Review Body pay review, which the Leader of the House invites us to bring into operation yet again, produced exactly that two years ago and was summarily dismissed by the same person. I remember that night well. It is also pretty disgraceful that those matters, which are important, are discussed so late with so little opportunity for hon. Members to take part. I know that I am privileged, in a sense, in having the chance to take part in the debate tonight. Many other hon. Members never will. That is wrong.

On that night two years ago, I remember that the payroll vote and the well-off vote voted down the less well-off vote. Those who could afford research assistants and secretarial support from private funds voted to deny finance from public funds to those who could not afford it. That is what happened. It had nothing to do with the House. It had nothing to do with any assessment of the needs of hon. Members. It had nothing to do with any constitutional concept — the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) talked about the need for a proper check on the Executive. It had nothing to do with proper salaries.

The House should not accept that approach. The House should reject that approach. I call upon hon. Members to do so.

12.47 am

Mr. Conal Gregory (York)

I noticed that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred in his closing remarks to a spirit of realism. have rarely heard from the Front Bench words that were so unrealistic as those he used tonight. For example. I refer to a place where he may seek a secretary for the future— The Times. I refer him to "La Creme de la Creme", on page 29 of Wednesday's edition. There he will see that secretaries are being offered £15,000 plus. That is the world of realism, not the unrealistic world that he put before us.

If we look, furthermore, at the international comparisons, which have not been alluded to by my right hon. Friend, we see that when the allowance was £8,752 in October 1982, the Canadian House of Commons was allowing over £41,000, the Federal German Republic over £15,000, the French National Assembly over £14,000 and the European Assembly over £16,000. I could go on. The United States Senate was allowing £365,000. If we are to refer to both a secretarial allowance and an office allowance in terms of depreciation of typewriters, national insurance, the 10 per cent. extra for the pension—

Mr. Richard Holt (Littleborough and Saddleworth)

We are talking not only about the salaries that are paid to these good secretaries, but about their physical working conditions. Those in our Parliament must be compared with those in other Parliaments.

Mr. Gregory

That is a relevant point, and I hope that we shall have an opportunity to debate it soon after the recess.

I conclude by urging my right hon. Friend to withdraw the resolution, or at least to abstain on it. It will be in the best interests of the House if he does so.

12.49 am

Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury)

I shall speak briefly because I do not wish to detain the House while more of the payroll vote is summoned in. I commend my amendment. It will enable us to pay decent wages and employ two workers, rather than one, or one and a bit if we can scrape the money together, and it will enable us to provide a decent service to our constituents.

Mr. Tony Banks

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but MR. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

12.50 am

Mr. Biffen

The debate would not be entirely traditional unless the Leader of the House had had a chance to say a few last words. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said that he did not think that this was my finest hour. I do not believe that any Leader of the House inviting the House to consider such matters is ever likely to find the House in the most calm, detatched and charitable of moods.

Many more weighty decisions will be taken by the House during this and the next week, but the public, reasonably, will be monitoring what we do now. The debate, and our decision on the motion, are about the techniques of interim uprating of the secretarial allowance between the four-yearly reviews. This is a difficult occasion. I believe in what I have argued, that this is not the occasion to try to rewrite the scale of the secretarial allowance. That is why we are having an inquiry, and those who are seeking to rewrite the scale of the allowance are perverting the intentions of the debate. Ultimately, they will be judged by how they handle public spending, which is how they will be judged in this instance.

Amendment proposed to the Question, in paragraph (a), leave out 'remained at £13,211' and insert 'been £19,000.'—[Mr. Chris Smith.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 172, Noes 128.

Division No. 265]	[12.52 am
AYES
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Corbett, Robin
Ashby, David	Corbyn, Jeremy
Ashdown, Paddy	Craigen, J. M.
Ashton, Joe	Crowther, Stan
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)	Cunliffe, Lawrence
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Dalyell, Tam
Barnett, Guy	Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Barron, Kevin	Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Beckett, Mrs Margaret	Dewar, Donald
Bell, Stuart	Dixon, Donald
Bellingham, Henry	Dormand, Jack
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Dover, Den
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)	Dubs, Alfred
Bermingham, Gerald	Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Best, Keith	Eadie, Alex
Blackburn, John	Eastham, Ken
Blair, Anthony	Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)	Fatchett, Derek
Boyes, Roland	Faulds, Andrew
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)	Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Fisher, Mark
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)	Flannery, Martin
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)	Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)	Forman, Nigel
Bruce, Malcolm	Foster, Derek
Bruinvels, Peter	Foulkes, George
Buchan, Norman	Franks, Cecil
Caborn, Richard	Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)	George, Bruce
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Gregory, Conal
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)	Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Clarke, Thomas	Hardy, Peter
Clay, Robert	Hargreaves, Kenneth
Clelland, David Gordon	Harman, Ms Harriet
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Hayes, J.
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)	Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Cohen, Harry	Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Conlan, Bernard	Holt, Richard
Conway, Derek	Home Robertson, John
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)	Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)	Howells, Geraint

Hoyle, Douglas	Pike, Peter
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Prescott, John
John, Brynmor	Randall, Stuart
Johnston, Sir Russell	Rathbone, Tim
Kennedy, Charles	Raynsford, Nick
Kirkwood, Archy	Redmond, Martin
Knight, Greg (Derby N)	Rhodes James, Robert
Knox, David	Richardson, Ms Jo
Lamond, James	Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Lawler, Geoffrey	Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Leadbitter, Ted	Robertson, George
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)	Rooker, J. W.
Leighton, Ronald	Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Shersby, Michael
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Litherland, Robert	Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Livsey, Richard	Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)	Sims, Roger
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Skinner, Dennis
Loyden, Edward	Smith, (Isl'ton S & F'bury)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh	Soley, Clive
McGuire, Michael	Spencer, Derek
McKay, Allen (Penistone)	Steel, Rt Hon David
McKelvey, William	Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
McLoughlin, Patrick	Straw, Jack
Madden, Max	Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Marek, Dr John	Thurnham, Peter
Martin, Michael	Wallace, James
Maxton, John	Waller, Gary
Maynard, Miss Joan	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Merchant, Piers	Wareing, Robert
Michie, William	Wiggin, Jerry
Mikardo, Ian	Wigley, Dafydd
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce	Williams, Rt Hon A.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)	Wilson, Gordon
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Winnick, David
Nellist, David	Winterton, Mrs Ann
O'Brien, William	Winterton, Nicholas
O'Neill, Martin	Wolfson, Mark
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Parry, Robert
Patchett, Terry	Tellers for the Ayes:
Pendry, Tom	Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and
Penhaligon, David	Mr. Allan Rogers.

NOES
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Ancram, Michael	Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)	Fox, Sir Marcus
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)	Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)	Freeman, Roger
Baldry, Tony	Galley, Roy
Batiste, Spencer	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Goodlad, Alastair
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Bottomley, Peter	Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia	Harris, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Bright, Graham	Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Brooke, Hon Peter	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.	Henderson, Barry
Burt, Alistair	Hind, Kenneth
Butcher, John	Hirst, Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Howard, Michael
Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Chope, Christopher	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)	Jessel, Toby
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Colvin, Michael	Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Coombs, Simon	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Cope, John	Key, Robert
Couchman, James	King, Rt Hon Tom
Dorrell, Stephen	Knowles, Michael
Dunn, Robert	Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Durant, Tony	Lang, Ian
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)	Lee, John (Pendle)
Eggar, Tim	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Lilley, Peter
Fallon, Michael	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Lord, Michael	Roe, Mrs Marion
Lyell, Nicholas	Rumbold, Mrs Angela
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Ryder, Richard
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)	Sackville, Hon Thomas
Major, John	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Malone, Gerald	Scott, Nicholas
Marlow, Antony	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Mather, Carol	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Stanley, Rt Hon John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Stern, Michael
Miller, Hal (B'grove)	Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)	Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)
Moore, Rt Hon John	Stokes, John
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)	Sumberg, David
Moynihan, Hon C.	Terlezki, Stefan
Neale, Gerrard	Tracey, Richard
Needham, Richard	Trippier, David
Neubert, Michael	Twinn, Dr Ian
Newton, Tony	Viggers, Peter
Nicholls, Patrick	Waddington, David
Norris, Steven	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Onslow, Cranley	Waldegrave, Hon William
Ottaway, Richard	Walden, George
Page, Richard (Herts SW)	Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Wheeler, John
Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)	Whitney, Raymond
Pollock, Alexander	Wood, Timothy
Portillo, Michael	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Powell, William (Corby)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas	Tellers for the Noes:
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)	Mr. Donald Thompson and
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)	Mr. Francis Maude.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, Put:—

The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 131.

Division No. 266]	[1.04 am
AYES
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Ashby, David	Corbett, Robin
Ashdown, Paddy	Corbyn, Jeremy
Ashton, Joe	Craigen, J. M.
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)	Crowther, Stan
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Cunliffe, Lawrence
Barnett, Guy	Dalyell, Tam
Barron, Kevin	Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Beckett, Mrs Margaret	Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Bell, Stuart	Dewar, Donald
Bellingham, Henry	Dixon, Donald
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Dormand, Jack
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)	Dover, Den
Bermingham, Gerald	Dubs, Alfred
Best, Keith	Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Blair, Anthony	Eadie, Alex
Boyes, Roland	Eastham, Ken
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)	Fatchett, Derek
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Faulds, Andrew
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)	Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)	Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)	Fisher, Mark
Bruce, Malcolm	Flannery, Martin
Bruinvels, Peter	Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Buchan, Norman	Forman, Nigel
Caborn, Richard	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)	Foster, Derek
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Foulkes, George
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)	Franks, Cecil
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)	Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Clarke, Thomas	George, Bruce
Clay, Robert	Gregory, Conal
Clelland, David Gordon	Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)	Hardy, Peter
Cohen, Harry	Hargreaves, Kenneth
Conlan, Bernard	Harman, Ms Harriet
Conway, Derek	Hayes, J.
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)	Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)	Patchett, Terry
Holt, Richard	Pendry, Tom
Home Robertson, John	Penhaligon, David
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)	Pike, Peter
Howells, Geraint	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Hoyle, Douglas	Prescott, John
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)	Randall, Stuart
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Rathbone, Tim
John, Brynmor	Raynsford, Nick
Johnston, Sir Russell	Redmond, Martin
Kennedy, Charles	Rhodes James, Robert
Kirkwood, Archy	Richardson, Ms Jo
Knight, Greg (Derby N)	Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Knox, David	Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Lamond, James	Robertson, George
Lawler, Geoffrey	Rooker, J. W.
Leadbitter, Ted	Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Leighton, Ronald	Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)	Sims, Roger
Litherland, Robert	Skinner, Dennis
Livsey, Richard	Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)	Soley, Clive
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Spencer, Derek
Loyden, Edward	Steel, Rt Hon David
McDonald, Dr Oonagh	Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
McGuire, Michael	Straw, Jack
McKay, Allen (Penistone)	Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
McKelvey, William	Thurnham, Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick	Wallace, James
Madden, Max	Waller, Gary
Marek, Dr John	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Martin, Michael	Wareing, Robert
Maxton, John	Wiggin, Jerry
Maynard, Miss Joan	Wigley, Dafydd
Merchant, Piers	Williams, Rt Hon A.
Michie, William	Wilson, Gordon
Mikardo, Ian	Winnick, David
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce	Winterton, Mrs Ann
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)	Winterton, Nicholas
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Wolfson, Mark
Nellist, David	Wrigglesworth, Ian
O'Brien, William
O'Neill, Martin	Tellers for the Ayes:
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Mr. Michael Meadowcroftand
Parry, Robert	Mr. Allan Rogers.

NOES
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Ancram, Michael	Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)	Fox, Sir Marcus
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)	Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)	Freeman, Roger
Baldry, Tony	Galley, Roy
Batiste, Spencer	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Goodlad, Alastair
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Ground, Patrick
Bottomley, Peter	Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Bright, Graham	Harris, David
Brooke, Hon Peter	Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.	Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Burt, Alistair	Hayward, Robert
Butcher, John	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Henderson, Barry
Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Hind, Kenneth
Chope, Christopher	Hirst, Michael
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)	Howard, Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Colvin, Michael	Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Coombs, Simon	Jessel, Toby
Cope, John	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Couchman, James	Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Dorrell, Stephen	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Dunn, Robert	Key, Robert
Durant, Tony	King, Rt Hon Tom
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)	Knowles, Michael
Eggar, Tim	Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Fairbairn, Nicholas	Lang, Ian

Lee, John (Pendle)	Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Lilley, Peter	Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Roe, Mrs Marion
Lord, Michael	Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Lyell, Nicholas	Ryder, Richard
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Sackville, Hon Thomas
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)	Scott, Nicholas
Major, John	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Malone, Gerald	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Marlow, Antony	Stanley, Rt Hon John
Mather, Carol	Stern, Michael
Maude, Hon Francis	Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)
Mellor, David	Stokes, John
Miller, Hal (B'grove)	Sumberg, David
Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Terlezki, Stefan
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)	Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Moore, Rt Hon John	Tracey, Richard
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)	Trippier, David
Moynihan, Hon C.	Twinn, Dr Ian
Neale, Gerrard	Viggers, Peter
Needham, Richard	Waddington, David
Neubert, Michael	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Newton, Tony	Waldegrave, Hon William
Nicholls, Patrick	Walden, George
Norris, Steven	Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Onslow, Cranley	Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Ottaway, Richard	Wheeler, John
Page, Richard (Herts SW)	Whitney, Raymond
Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Wood, Timothy
Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Pollock, Alexander	Tellers for the Noes:
Portillo, Michael	Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and
Powell, William (Corby)	Mr. Tim Sainsbury.
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Main Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the first Resolution of 20th July 1984 (limit on office, secretarial and research allowance) should have effect as if—

1. (a) the limit for the year ending with 31st March 1986 had been £19,000, and
2. (b) the relevant percentage for the year ending with 31st March 1987 were 6 per cent.