HC Deb 21 July 1987 vol 120 cc295-306 9.19 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham)

I beg to move, That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—

  1. (a) the salaries of Members not falling within paragraph (b) shall, in respect of service in 1988 or any subsequent year, be at a yearly rate equal to 89 per cent. of the rate which on 1st January in that year represents the maximum point on the main national pay scale for Grade 6 officers in the Home Civil Service, or if that scale ceases to exist, on the scale which for the time being replaces it (disre-garding, in either case, any discretionary pay point on that scale); and
  2. (b) the Salaries of Officers of this House and Members receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 shall, in respect of service in 1988 or any subsequent year, beat a yearly rate equal to 67 percent. of the rate which on 1st January in that year represents the maximum point referred to in paragraph (a).
I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House

if we take together the other motions in my name:

That, in the opinion of this House— (a) the allowance payable to a Member of this House in respect of the aggregate expenses incurred by him for his Parliamentary duties—

  1. (i) as general office expenses (including expenses incurred in the purchase of office equipment).
  2. (ii) on secretarial assistance, and
  3. (iii) on research assistance for work undertaken in the proper performance of such duties,
should be known as the office costs allowance; (b) the limit on the office costs allowance should be determined as follows—
  1. (i) for the year ending with 31st March 1988, the limit should be £20,140,
  2. (ii) for the year ending with 31st March 1989, the limit should be the greater of the following amounts, namely the amount obtained by increasing £19,500 by the relevant percentage and £20,140,
  3. (iii) 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);
(c) the arrangements approved by Mr. Speaker pursuant to paragraph (b) of the second Resolution of 19th July 1983 (payments by Fees Office in respect of secre-tarial and research assistance) should include arrangements for securing that, before any salary or fee is paid to any person in respect of his employment by the Member concerned, the Member—
  1. (i) in the case of a person by law entitled to receive a written statement of the main terms and conditions of that employment, has furnished the Fees Office with a copy of any such statement and has furnished the Fees Office and that person with a statement containing a job description relating to that employment, or
  2. (ii) in the case of any other person, has furnished the Fees Office and that person with a statement containing a job description relating to that employment and has either included in that statement details of that persons's pay and hours of work or furnished the Fees Office with a copy of a written contract relating to that employment,
together with arrangements for securing that, before any other payment is made in respect of services provided by any person, the Member concerned has furnished the Fees Office with invoices specifying the services in question; (d) the limit applicable to the sum referred to in paragraph (b) of the third Resolution of 5th June 1981 (pension contributions for Members' secretaries and research assistants) should, for the year ending with 31st March 1988 and any subsequent year, be equal to—
  1. (i) 10 percent. of the salary, or (as the case may be) of the aggregate amount of the salaries, payable for that year to the person or persons in respect of whom any such sums are paid, or
  2. (ii) 10 per cent. of the amount which is the limit for that year on the office costs allowance,
whichever is less. In this Resolution "year" means a year ending with 31st March, and for the purposes of this Resolution—
  1. (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;
    2. 296 297
  2. (ii) any fraction of a pound in the amount obtained as mentioned in paragraph (b)(ii) or (iii) above for any year shall be treated as a whole pound if it is not less than 50 pence, but shall otherwise be disregarded.
That the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House— (a) the salaries of Members not falling within paragraph (b) shall, in respect of service in 1988 or any subsequent year, be at a yearly rate equal to 89 per cent. of the rate which on 1st January in that year represents the maximum point on the main national pay scale for Grade 6 officers in the Home Civil Service or, if that scale ceases to exist, on the scale which for the time being replaces it (disregarding, in either case, any discretionary pay point on that scale); and (b) the salaries of Officers of this House and Members receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 shall, in respect of service in 1988 or any subsequent year, be at a yearly rate equal to 67percent. of the rate which on 1st January in that year represents the maximum point referred to in paragraph (a). I hope also to cover in my remarks the Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1987 for which we are seeking the House's approval.

The discussion of our salaries is always a peculiarly intimate and sensitive debate. The last time we debated these matters the common theme running through the speeches from both sides of the House was how invidious and embarrassing it was that, year after year, we had to debate and then determine our own pay. The motions in my name would, if approved, lead to automatic adjustments in our salaries for future years without the need for annual debates. I shall deal first with Members' and then Ministers' pay before turning to the motion on the secretarial allowance.

The House last debated Members' salaries in July 1983. On 19 July, while accepting a phased increase in salary up to £18,500 on 1 January 1987, the House voted that, from 1 January 1988, a Member's salary would be linked to that paid to the Civil Service grade which was earning £18,500 in July 1983. That was equivalent to 89 per cent. of the basic maximum of the grade 6 or senior principal pay scale. To become effective, the resolution required confirmation within three months of a new Parliament.

That linkage would give Members a rise of £4,048, from £18,500 to £22,548, to be paid from 1 January 1988. It would also mean that future annual increases from 1 January 1989 and beyond for Members' pay would be linked to the increase for this Civil Service pay point. As some hon. and right hon. Members will recall, the Government did not originally support either the principle of linkage or this particular linkage. We were prepared, as a compromise, to support a different linkage that would have produced a much more modest increase. But the House voted for the increase that I described earlier, and traditionally it is the House which decides the issue. Today it is for the House to decide whether to confirm the linkage in the 1983 resolution. The motions in my name give the House that chance.

Despite our original reservations about the linkage, I now support it. I believe that the Government have a responsibility to listen to the House on such matters and, sometimes, to defer to its judgment. The House has voted for the principle of linkage on three separate occasions—in 1975, 1980 and 1983—and its will is clear. As a workable and, I believe, generally acceptable proposal, the linkage has virtues other than necessity. I am sure that the whole House will be relieved if we can agree upon it tonight.

There are two further points that I should make. First, we believe that it is in accordance with the will of the House to make this linkage with the basic maximum pay scale for this grade, and not to take account of any discretionary pay points that might be added to the scale, but which will not be awarded to the grade as a whole.

Second, I should explain why there are two similar motions on Members' pay. The first motion is framed as an expression of opinion, and can be amended. The second bears the Queen's Recommendation, and cannot be amended. This is required in order to provide for an increase in Exchequer contributions to the pension fund, following an increase in Members' pay. These two motions are the normal way of dealing with the issue If the first finds favour in the House in an unamended form, the second effective motion will be moved. If, however, the House rejects or amends the first motion, we will not move the second motion today, but I shall undertake to return to the House in the near future with an effective motion that reflects the House's view.

I hope, however, that the House will accept the motion in its present form, as the amendment which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has tabled is not one which I could recommend—although I shall, of course, listen attentively to the hon. Gentleman's arguments. I believe that the amendment would bar Members from occupations outside the House, after the next election. I do not think that there is a consensus about this, and I am sure that many Members believe that it can be beneficial to the work of the House if some Members have current experience of outside employment.

The motions deal also with the reduced parliamentary salary payable to my colleagues on the Front Bench, and certain other officeholders. The arrangement proposed is that their reduced parliamentary salary should be linked to a lower percentage of the same maximum on the senior principal pay scale, as was envisaged in 1983 That will give my colleagues an increase in this element of their salary from £13,875 to £16,911.

As far as ministerial salaries themselves are concerned, the Government's proposals are contained in the draft Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1987, which I laid before the House on 16 July and which I hope the House will approve today. I refer the House also to my written answer of Thursday 16 July in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) when I set out in some detail the changes that we envisage. The Government's proposals are simple. We do not believe that percentage increases similar to that proposed for Members would be appropriate for Ministers or other officeholders. At the same time, we do not believe that it would be right for junior Ministers in particular to be worse off than if they had remained Back-Bench Members.

We propose, therefore, that all Ministers and officeholders in this House, and in another place, should receive in total the same cash increase of £4,048 as Members of Parliament are due to receive from 1 January 1988.

I turn now to our consideration of the Members' office, secretarial and research allowance. On 16 July last year, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North, (Mr. Biffen), moved a motion which was designed to overcome the anomalous increase that would have occurred in the allowance because of a quirk in the linkage. He accompanied this motion with the assurance that the allowance would be referred to the TSRB for a fundamental overhaul. On that occasion, the House did not accept the wise advice of my right hon. Friend to limit the percentage increase in the allowance for that year to 6 per cent., but accepted the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) that the allowance should be paid as if it had been fixed at £19,000 rather than at £13,211 and should be further increased by 6 per cent. for the following financial year. That gave a maximum of £20,140 for last year.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North none the less referred the office, secretarial and research allowance to the Top Salaries Review Body. Its report was published earlier this year, as my right hon. Friend announced to the House in a written answer on 29 April. The TSRB recommended that the maximum allowance from 1 April 1987 should be £19,500, consisting notionally of £17,000 for staff and £2,500 for office and equipment costs. In view of the decision that the House had already taken that the allowance be set at £20,140, the TSRB recommended that the level should be retained on a mark-time basis until the figure of £19,500, uprated in accordance with the existing formula, reached a level higher than £20,140. The TSRB in addition made recommendations about good employment practice and accountability for claims made on the allowance.

The motion in my name on the secretarial allowance reflects in a number of ways the conclusions of the TSRB's report. It follows the reommendation, which I have just outlined, about the level of the allowance and mark-time arrangements. The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) would overturn those arrangements. I shall listen with interest to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but I believe the House would be doing itself a disservice if, having preempted the TSRB's review by voting for the present level of allowance, it rejected the TSRB's conclusion that the allowance was too high.

For the future, the Government motion retains the linkage which has previously been in operation with the maximum of the senior personal secretary scale receiving inner London weighting, again as the TSRB recommended. The TSRB believed that the allowance should be renamed the office expenses allowance. I have slightly adapted this recommendation to rename it the office costs allowance. This is to emphasise the point, both to hon. Members and to others, that the payments available are for costs incurred, and do not represent a second general source of income for Members.

The House will see that the motion takes account of the Top Salaries Review Body's recommendation that to promote good employment practice the Fees Office should receive copies of written statements of main terms and conditions of employment for Members' staff. It is, of course, already a legal obligation for Members to supply their staff with such documentation, and it is worrying that the TSRB found some instances where that was not happening. The implementation of this recommendation should rectify the position.

Additionally on accountability, the TSRB recommen-ded that we should consider whether we should adopt in the resolution the Inland Revenue criteria of expenditure qualifying for reimbursement which is "wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred" in parliamentary duties. I considered carefully whether adopting that formula would substantially improve the arrangements for accountability. I accept the spirit of that recommendation, but I am not convinced that the wording of the criteria used by the Inland Revenue is necessarily appropriate for our own arrangements. Indeed, I believe that difficulties might arise if the same wording were used in different circumstances but in respect of the same claims both by the Fees Office and the Inland Revenue.

Finally, I refer to the TSRB's recommendation that Chief Whips should make informal arrangements so that any claims on which, exceptionally, substantial doubts have arisen, and which cannot be resolved by the Fees Office and the individual Member, can be referred to the appropriate Chief Whip. Those arrangements, by their very nature, are not suited to being expressed formally in the terms of the resolution. But I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Patronage Secretary is discussing, through the usual channels, how such arrangements might work.

The motions are, of course, for the House to decide. I believe that they reflect what the House has in mind when we last debated Members' pay, and it is on that basis that I have brought them forward today. On Ministers' pay, I believe that our proposals represent a fair and realistic settlement, while as far as the office allowance is concerned, as I hope I have shown, the motion in my name was drawn up with the recommendations of the TSRB very much in mind. I commend the motions to the House.

Mr. Speaker

I have selected the amendment to motion No. 3 in the name of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I have been unable to select the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), but I have selected the amendment to motion No. 4 in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and his hon. Friends. At the end of the debate I shall put each motion separately and call upon the hon. Members concerned to move their amendments formally.

9.30 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)

Both from reading ancient debates on Members' pay and being present at some of the earlier debates in the 1980s I believe that it is fair to say that debates on our pay have always been long on humbug, but short on candour. I hope that the weight of precedent will not mean that I entirely follow what has happened in the past.

In a free vote tonight I am advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion to increase Members' pay and formalise the linkage, which we agreed in principle. I am also advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment to the motion on allowances proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). Although I am sympathetic to the objectives of the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), which would, if passed, abate Members' earnings in relation to their outside earnings, I am extremely doubtful whether the drafting of that proposition is sound. [Interruption.]

Now that I have raised the subject of humbug I would like to get one bit of humbug out of the way — the Prime Minister's stance on this pay increase. There have been many apparent leaks in the newspapers — unattributable briefings — suggesting that the Prime Minister, in some way or other, wishes to block or reduce the proposed increase. In view of the fact that the right hon. Lady claims to be a conviction politician, that cannot be true. If hon. Members refer to Hansard for 19 July 1983 they will find that the right hon. Lady voted, not once, but twice, for the proposition that is before us tonight. Therefore, if any Conservative Members are seeking to ingratiate themselves with the inhabitant of 10 Downing street, I suggest that, rather than rely on the scurrilous rumours in the newspapers, they stick to the written record in Hansard and vote for this proposition for the increase and the linkage in the sure knowledge that they will be doing what the Prime Minister really wants.

In 1983 the Top Salaries Review Body recommended that, from June 1983, Members of Parliament should receive £19,000 a year. The Government refused to accept the recommendation of the independent review body. There were various behind-the-scene deals, in which Sir Edward du Cann, as boss of the 1922 Committee, was portrayed as our shop steward. As a result of his activities the proposed increase of £19,000 was reduced to pay increases rising by instalments to £18,500 in 1987, and an increase in Members' contributions towards pensions from 6 per cent. to 9 per cent.—not a brilliant effort as a shop steward, many hon. Members thought. However, in an extraordinary quid pro quo, it was also agreed that the proposed secretarial allowance of £13,000 should be reduced to £11,000, thus managing to give the impression that hon. Members put number one first and gave little attention to their responsibility for paying decent wages to their staff.

Nevertheless, at that time, with the Prime Minister's support, linkage was agreed, and that is the proposal that is before the House tonight. We welcome that linkage; it has been agreed twice before at a higher grading in the Civil Service than the one being proposed tonight, but it should, as the Leader of the House has said, help us avoid similar debates on this in future.

There have been discussions about the right level of pay for Members of Parliament. They are not really discussions of the principle, because that was decided in 1911, when Parliament was faced with many relatively impecunious Labour Members and decided to pay £400 a year. I am advised that the value of that £400 in today's money would be about £50,000, so we are not paying ourselves as well as was originally agreed in 1911. Some of my hon. Friends may be interested to know that the 1911 decision was an implementation of one of the six demands of the Chartists in 1838, who called for the payment of Members of Parliament to enable an honest tradesman, working man, or other person to serve a constituency when taken from his business to attend to the interests of the country". The decision whether Members should be paid has been made, but the level of pay is a matter of judgment.

By way of comparisons, let us consider the sort of people that we, as hon. Members, have to deal with. These include large numbers of members of the staff of the House of Commons. I am advised that 62 of the present staff are on salary scales that start above the present level of ours and a further 49 are on scales that start below ours but end above it. It looks as though we are more or less on level pegging with 100-odd members of the staff of the House of Commons.

We might also compare ourselves with those who report on our activities in the House. It is the duty of hon. Members to formulate what they are going to say and to rely on all sorts of rhetorical attributes to get their message over, whereas the Lobby journalists have the simple and straightforward task of reporting truthfully and accurately what is said in this place. No invention, no embroidery and no imaginative skill are required.

If we examine Lobby journalists' expenses we may obtain some idea of how well we are looking after ourselves. Not a single Lobby journalist working for a national newspaper will be paid less than us if our proposed increase goes through. I am also advised that some Lobby journalists working for Sunday newspapers. and therefore producing at best one article a week, are paid as much as twice what we shall be receiving when the increase goes through—plus, in many cases, a free car and expenses.

Journalists' expenses are not really in the same class as those that we are paid. We must prove to the Fees Office that money has been properly spent on our parliamentary duties, whereas the expenses incurred by many journalists are, shall we say, self-consumed; or, occasionally, their consumption is assisted by hon. Members. Other people that we have to deal with are officials in health authorities and local authorities. Hon. Members will find that a substantial number of senior officers with whom they have to deal in those authorities will continue to be paid rather better than we are.

International comparisons are difficult, but the United States House of Representatives pays its members £50,000 and the Netherlands pays up to about £30,000, depending on the level of outside earnings of members. Again it appears that we are not really feathering our nests. What is proposed now springs from what was originally proposed by the Top Salaries Review Body and ought to be supported by the House because the linkage is extremely valuable.

Some of my hon. Friends think that we are already paid too much and that we should not give ourselves an increase. Self-denial has a long and reputable history, but the emphasis should be on self rather than on forcing denial on others. That applies to hon. Members who do not supplement their incomes from any source outside the House. I do not know exactly what view I take of some Conservative Members who earn or receive substantial sums from outside the House and still say that we ought not to increase our pay. That seems to be extremely close to humbug.

I shall now turn to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. It proposes to abate Members' pay by a substantial proportion of their outside earnings. The amendment is badly drafted and might make the situation worse than it is. The clause would abate the present earnings of, for example, a Tory Member who has been running a small engineering company for 20 years. However, if the income derived from his or her activities or employment as a Member of Parliament, and if the hon. Member was the parliamentary adviser to a Japanese video company, the salary would not be abated by the amount received from that source. That is a silly and unjustifiable position, although I think that there ought to be an abatement of Members' pay related to outside earnings.

I shall now turn to allowances. The Opposition, and I think most Conservative Members, welcome the provision to make the payment of the secretarial allowance subject to the submission to the Fees Office of a statement of the contract of employment of employees. That would clearly be good for the employee and for the reputation of Members, because we could no longer be accused of fiddling.

I do not support the standstill in the increase proposed this year by the Government, even though it was also recommended by the Top Salaries Review Body. The TSRB is not consistent. It says that in view of the increase that went through last year, there is evidence showing that hon. Members are moving towards employing two full-time staff. It says that Members should employ only one and a half members of staff. In a sense the market shows that there is a need for more staff and the allowances should respond to that. We support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West. Setting aside the pay, most hon. Members regard the working conditions of most of our staff as absolutely abominable. The conditions should be massively improved. The only way to do that is to create more office space for the staff to work in. I want to suggest that although the House has not yet had time to debate a report from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) about the new buildings and additional accommodation, the House should seriously consider the possibility of taking over at least some, or possibly all, of Richmond terrace, the Whitehall rehabilitation, and the new buildings, 158,000 sq ft of offices provided at a cost of £36 million, presently earmarked for a large collection of civil servants. There is a greater need for hon. Members to be near to this House than for a large collection of civil servants to move yet nearer to 10 Downing street.

I present an entirely personal view about ministerial salaries. I welcome the Government's decision to abate the increases that would otherwise have gone to Ministers. I believe that Ministers have always done rather well in our system. After all, Cabinet Ministers were receiving £5,000 a year when hon. Members did not get a cent. I believe that it would be better and sounder for our democracy if the differential between Back-Bench Members and Ministers was reduced.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak)

Why?

Mr. Dobson

I will try to explan why. At present if a Minister is feeling a little dissatisfied at what the Government are doing in Cabinet he is faced with the prospect of losing the chaffeur-driven car, his office and status and, in the case of Cabinet Ministers, he faces losing a very substantial chunk of income, as one of the recent victims of the post-election purge explained the other day. It is wholly sound that in our democracy we should encourage people to say what they think in Cabinet, to do what they believe to be right and not to face massive financial penalties if they want to get out. After all, had my proposition existed before, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) would have been able to speak out about the Stalinist regime before he was thrown out of Cabinet.

In summary, I recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the proposed increase and linkage in Members' pay, to support the amendment to raise allowances in line with the comparative pay and support ministerial salaries being held back.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark

If I might follow the hon. Gentleman's arguments, if we are to pay Members of Parliament £20,000 or £30,000 or more, is there not more reason for hon. Members to want to keep their Government in office so that they do not risk their jobs? Is that not a better argument to get better Ministers rather than better-paid Members? How do we argue both cases? We either believe in better-paid Ministers or more Members of Parliament.

Mr. Doug Hoyle (Warrington, North)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should it not be in order only for hon. Members to speak in this debate who rely entirely on their salary, unlike the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) who is a senior member of a firm of stockbrokers and a member of many companies, who does not depend on his parliamentary salary and indeed who could do without it?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is aware that there is an amendment on that very matter.

Mr. Dobson

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) puts forward arguments that were put forward by the Tory party in the debate in 1911 when it was suggested that, if hon. Members were paid anything, they would be forced to work even harder to sustain their party in office for fear of the electoral consequences. It was pointed out in that debate that the person who made that suggestion had taken a very large salary as a Minister and, before then, had done public service in the Army and received a substantial salary. It did not seem to affect his work. Despite the fact that the Tory party opposed the payment of Members in 1911, there is precious little evidence that even the rich ones among them did not pocket the 400 quid as soon as it became available.

Finally—this applies to the hon. Member for Selly Oak—if there are any hon. Members who do not want to take the pay increase or who feel that they cannot properly spend all the allowances in providing a service for their constituents, that is their decision. I do not believe that they should obstruct those of us who feel that we could make good use of both.

9.50 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)

This is a very important matter and it is interesting that a number of hon. Members are missing, not least some who have a reputation which, I suspect, would enable them to pay for the privilege of having an audience for the many witticisms which they provoke, often from a sedentary position. We need not pay any serious attention to them. I suspect that there are hon. Members present who have taken, either by wit or good fortune, precautions to link their salary or take-home pay to such extraneous matters as the housing market, which will undoubtedly take greater care of them than any cost of living increase will take care of the salary of Members of Parliament in the future. I do not think that we need pay a great deal of heed to them.

There are hon. Members among us who have been in the habit of pouring contempt on what they see as the greed of Back Benchers because they are able to do so with the tremendous confidence that comes from having inherited a great deal from daddy or grand-daddy. That is undoubedly a powerful mechanism for making one immune from any suggestion that the salary paid to a Member of Parliament should reflect his quality.

It is some 20 years since I was a member of the Civil Service. I was a member of the grade to which we shall be linked, bar a mere 11 per cent. I do not believe that my constituents, or indeed many of the public outside, would believe that it was enormously self-seeking of me to vote in support of a motion which would put me back within 89 per cent. of the salary that it was felt I was worth to the public 20 years ago. In the debate about salaries and allowances, it is far too easy to forget the nature of the work which the public send us here to do. Members of Parliament are not simply managers or wage slaves of the ordinary kind. All hon. Members know, many much better than I, that most members of the public believe that anyone could become a Member of Parliament. In a real and precious sense, that is absolutely true, and long may it remain so. Before people become Members of this honourable House, they have to undergo, in nearly every case, a long and arduous apprenticeship. They have to attend meeting after meeting after meeting, usually with very small numbers of people and very small rewards, in either interest or effectiveness. They have to go at all sorts of hours to meetings which last late into the night so that they can make merely the first steps of a recognition that they might be eligible to put themselves forward to represent a constituency. That is not an easy apprenticeship and it is not one which most of our constituents would wish to undertake.

There is another large difference between our position here and that of most members of the general public. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. Will hon. Members who are carrying on private conversations desist or leave the Chamber?

Mr. Rowe

It is also true to say that most members of the public have views on political issues. The thing that singles us out is that at some point in the game we have to be seen to make a decision. We have to be counted in our debates. We have to vote, and that vote is recorded in a way that comes back to haunt many of us later.

It is often said that the best advice that a new Member of Parliament is given is to be his own man — or her own woman. I think that that is absolutely right. However, it is a much more difficult thing to be than most members of the public, and indeed most people who give that advice, are capable of understanding. Because we have to try to be our own person, and because we must at some stage in the game stand up and be counted, and have our opinions recorded, we are in a unique position.

Finally, I believe that, by and large, Members of Parliament in this honourable House have a reputation—deservedly earned—for working hard, for representing their constituents and for engaging, to a degree that is uncommon in the world outside, in voluntary and other activities. The record of nearly every hon. Member is a pre-eminent record of public service.

For all those reasons, I believe that this is an honourable undertaking and a worthwhile profession. I think it wholly improper to suggest that to link ourselves with 89 per cent. of a civil service grade that already contains some 3,700 civil servants is in any way greedy or self-seeking.

9.57 pm
Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, East)

I think that it is time for a change on this subject. I have found over many years in Parliament under both Conservative and Labour Governments that it has never been a right time to pay Members of Parliament or their staff more. In 1964, we received no secretarial allowances, and had to pay for telephone calls outside London. Those things we built up slowly and painfully over a number of years. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. I ask the House to listen in silence.

Mr. Orme

I shall not detain the House for very long. However, I think that this is an important issue. The media are listening, and we know some of the remarks that will be made, but I believe that what we are doing is right, and it is not excessive. That is the important thing. The link is with 89 per cent. of a principal grade. That grade is £25,335. We are not receiving that, because the resolution is for 89 per cent. In 1964, the salary was £3,250. If the increase had been based on a retail price index, that salary today would be £22,780, which is very close to what we shall get. If it were linked to wages, it would be £36,500. That is an indication of what the salary could be.

It is not correct that we are to have a 21 per cent. increase. In 1983, the agreed figure of £18,500 was staged over four years. Consequently, there was no increase during that period. The retail price increase is about 21 per cent. — exactly the increase that we are to receive. Therefore, this provision is right.

I do not agree, however, about secretarial allowances. Hon. Members will be unable to give a pay increase to their staff for the next two years. That is wrong. I understand that the Leader of the House is to refer hon. Members' pensions to a review body.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.