Ministerial and Other Salaries

HC Deb 12 December 1989 vol 163 cc951-65 10.40 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe)

I beg to move, That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved. I hope that, as previously this evening, I need not detain the House for long on this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hear a menacing noise from the Opposition Benches below the Gangway. I hope that the menace is of a gentle kind. I shall outline briefly the changes that we are proposing and will hope to deal at the end of the debate with any other points requiring an answer.

As the House knows, under the terms of the resolution of 21 July 1987, all hon. Members will receive an increase in their parliamentary salary on 1 January 1990 which will amount to £2,594, of which £1,027 represents the final stage of the 1988–89 settlement for the Civil Service grade to which parliamentary salaries are linked. The increase in the parliamentary salary for 1989 is 6.9 per cent.

On Friday 1 December, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), I announced our intention that Ministers and paid office holders should each receive the same total cash increase as all other hon. Members, £2,594, from the same date, 1 January 1990. I set out in my written answer and in the order the revised salaries proposed for Ministers and paid office holders. The average increase in the ministerial pay bill resulting from the proposals is 6.5 per cent. —

Mr. Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet)

Too low.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

My hon. Friend is expressing some interesting variations in points of view—[Interruption] I am unnerved. Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The average increase in total salaries in the House, parliamentary and ministerial, will be about 6 per cent. and the average increase in the other place will be a little over 7.5 per cent. The percentage increase for their Lordships is higher because the salaries of Ministers and paid office holders in the other place are significantly lower than those in this House, but all Ministers and paid office holders will receive the same cash increase, and I repeat that the total average increase will be 6.5 per cent.

In detail, the proposals that the order will implement will be as follows. All Ministers and paid office holders in this House will receive an increase of £641 in their official salary. Taking into account the increase of £1,953 in their reduced parliamentary salaries, which they receive automatically on 1 January 1990, this means that they will receive a total increase—remarkably, the same total increase—of £2,594. That is the same as all other hon. Members will receive in their salaries.

In the other place we propose that Ministers and paid office holders should receive the full £2,594 as an increase in their official salary. They, of course, have no separate parliamentary salary to be taken into account. The total increase in salaries for Ministers and paid office holders in both Houses amounts to over £120,000, which, as I have said, represents 6.5 per cent. on the pay bill.

I believe that our proposals represent a modest, fair and realistic conclusion. They are fully consistent with our anti-inflationary policies, and I commend the motion to the House.

10.45 pm

Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin)

As a lifelong trade unionist, may I say that there are certain aspects of the order that I find encouraging and surprising in the Government's attitude. For example, this salary increase is an emphtatic rejection of what Ministers frequently say when talking about the pay claims of other people. It represents an emphatic rejection of market forces as an important determinant of wage rates.

The Prime Minister, who is fond of using that as an argument for other people's pay rates, would not dream of applying it as a principle to the determination of her own. We know of at least one other person who is anxious to do her job. I have not checked with the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), but I have reason to believe that he would do the right hon. Lady's job for less money. I am sure that many Conservative Members would do it for a great deal less, and I fear that some might even agree to pay us so that they could do it. But, rightly, market forces have been rejected as a basis for the payment of salaries in this case.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes)

If the hon. Gentleman's argument holds any water, how would he explain salaries of £250,000, £300,000 and even £450,000 a year for presenting television programmes on BBC or ITV? Even for political programmes people are paid £300,000 to £400,000 a year. There are, I am sure, many people in the House who would love to do those jobs for much less money.

Mr. Grocott

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is absurd for salaries of that magnitude to be paid when they have nothing to do with the application of market forces. Clearly other forces are at work in determining such salaries.

It is interesting to note that there is no suggestion in the Government's proposals that the pay of those concerned should be determined by whether they come from a low-wage area. After all, Conservative Members often say that we should scrap national agreements. Accordingly, if Ministers or other Members come from areas of lower wages, presumably they should accept the prevailing pay rates in those areas. I am glad that such a concept is rejected in the order, and I, too, reject it.

I like the way in which the Government are observing the principles of collective agreements—in other words, that people's pay rates should not be determined by individual deals with the boss. I hope that Conservative Members will use what influence they have in the current industrial dispute affecting Associated Newspapers Group Limited and journalists on The Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday and The Evening Standard and that they will reject the management proposals to scrap all collective agreements—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member is referring to people who cannot possibly come within the scope of the order.

Mr. Grocott

I simply hope that Conservative Members who are tonight supporting principles of collective bargaining will remember those principles when other matters come before the House.

The Leader of the House frequently referred to 6.5 per cent. I hardly need remind the House that people pay their grocery bills not with percentages but with pounds and that 6.5 per cent. of a large salary is very different from 6.5 per cent. of, for example, an ambulance man's or woman's salary. That figure of 6.5 per cent. is the most that has been offered to them and, in the light of what will be happening later this week, I hope that Conservative Members will think more in terms of the amount of money on offer as a weekly increase and less in terms of percentage rises.

10.49 pm

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

On this occasion the Government have taken exactly the right decision by keeping ministerial salary increases, although they may be well earned, below the rate of inflation. If everybody has wage increases up to the rate of inflation, next year inflation will be higher, so the ratchet principle operates and the spiral of inflation is never broken. I applaud the Government on their decision.

I have never heard such flawed, silly arguments as we heard tonight from the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott). [HON. MEMBERS: "We hear them every day."] My colleagues say that they hear them every day. I know, but one tries to shut them out.

If a Minister were in Birmingham, Newcastle or Huddersfield—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

What about Macclesfield?

Mr. Beaumont-Dark

Macclesfield is far too good for most of us.

What if salaries were based on a different system? Why cannot the hon. Gentleman see that we should encourage prosperity to seep beyond the midlands to the north and north-east? A house which in Huddersfield or Sheffield might cost £50,000 would cost £90,000 in Birmingham and£150,000 in London. National wage bargaining, whether for Ministers or workers on the factory floor, produces huge distortions, and that is what causes great trouble. It is not Government grants that create prosperity, but sensible, natural market forces.

Mr. Hanley

Does my hon. Friend believe that the discrepancy between Back-Benchers' pay and ministerial pay should be reduced, maintained or increased?

Mr. Beaumont-Dark

I am sorry that my hon. Friend has brought up the subject of Members' pay.

Mr. Hanley

I asked about the discrepancy in pay.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark

Hon. Members may think that they can get away with fixing their salaries to that of someone else and saying, "It's not me, guy", but that is not something that people fully understand.

Tonight I heard that the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has decided, unfortunately, to leave the House and that 953 people would like to succeed to his constituency. I have a hunch that, even if our salaries were halved, 950 would still like to succeed him.

If the House is to lead the people forward to prosperity, the one great certainly is that there must be pay differentials. In that way people will be encouraged to move to the north because there is a greater sense of prosperity. On that basis the Government's decision to grant increases below the rate of inflation is on the right lines. Unless we kill inflation, we shall never get the country firmly and properly on the move. That is why this evening I intend to support the motion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House.

10.53 pm

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)

I know that others wish to speak, so I shall say a few words in support of the amendment in the names of my hon. Friends—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. The amendment has not been selected. That would be out of order.

Mr. Salmond

I wholly accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although the amendment has not been called for debate, surely it is in order to discuss its content.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Let me see how we get on.

Mr. Salmond

There is an anomaly in proposing ministerial salary increases, especially in the case of the Leader of the House, when there is a blatant failure to observe the Standing Orders of the House. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) were recently deemed to have fallen foul of the Standing Orders and our punishment was to be expelled from the premises for five days. Standing Order No. 130 is quite specific that a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs shall be established. That order is being blatantly breached, yet its custodian and the Minister responsible for its enforcement, rather than being punished for not abiding by it, or at least arranging for the House to keep to its Standing Orders, is to be rewarded by a salary increase of £2,554.

Our amendment proposed to cut the salary of the Leader of the House by £1,000. Many people would say that that cut was too modest given the punishment meted out to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Govan for not obeying Standing Orders. It might have been argued, had our amendment been selected, that the Leader of the House should have experienced a punishment more severe than a salary cut of £1,000. I and my hon. Friends are reasonable people and we acknowledge that in the past year the Leader of the House has experienced some uncertainty in his domestic circumstances because of ministerial changes. We do not want to impose an additional burden or strain on the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

A reasonable question can be asked about our attempt to oppose the increase in the salaries of Ministers in general and the Leader of the House in particular. We could ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman responsible for the failure of Scottish Back-Bench Tories to serve on a Select Committee—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue that argument. He is getting away from the motion that is before the House and discussing the amendment that Mr. Speaker ruled out of order.

Mr. Jim Sillars (Glasgow, Govan)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Was the amendment not selected, as distinct from being ruled out of order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I thought that I had made it clear that Mr. Speaker ruled that the amendment was out of order.

Mr. Salmond

The answer to the question of whether ministerial salaries should be approved will depend on whether we are satisfied that Ministers are pursuing their responsibilities in an effective manner. Therefore, it must be in order to debate whether the Leader of the House is pursuing his responsibilities in an effective manner. Surely one of those responsibilities is to see that the House abides by its Standing Orders and we are entitled to ask whether he is personally responsible for the failure to set up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs or whether the responsibility lies elsewhere.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Obviously the hon. Gentleman can refer to the conduct of the Leader of the House, but he is not entitled to embark on a discussion about the merits or otherwise of the failure of the Leader of the House to set up that or any other Select Committee. That is where the hon. Gentleman is out of order.

Mr. Salmond

Of course I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the question of whether the Leader of the House is pursuing his responsibilities in an effective manner is surely central to the question of whether the House grants him a salary increase of more than £2,500. If we are not entitled to examine the conduct of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, not just on the matter of setting up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs but on the range of his responsibilities, how are we meant to debate the motion that is before the House?

Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill)

Would the hon. Gentleman follow through the logic of his argument by accepting that if an hon. Member does not turn up for a certain percentage of votes that hon. Member should have a cut in salary?

Mr. Salmond

Of course we are not discussing the salaries of hon. Members. In a Scottish television programme I was unexpectedly revealed as the Scottish Member with the best record of attendance for Scottish issues, far higher than the attendance record of the hon. Lady. However, not for a second would I suggest that I should be paid more than the hon. Lady.

Let me return to the question of whether the Leader of the House is pursuing his responsibilities effectively and is therefore justified in receiving a salary increase of £2,500. Surely the House is entitled to establish whether he is responsible for not carrying out his duties, or whether the responsibility lies elsewhere.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I must repeat that I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take up too much time by seeking to debate this matter with me. He is entitled to say that, because of the conduct of the Leader of the House or any other Minister, he will withhold his support for a proposed salary increase, but he cannot go into details. If that were allowed, we should find ourselves examining in detail the conduct of every Minister in every Department, which would clearly not be in order on a motion such as this. I hope that hon. Members will stick to the motion, and not discuss amendments that Mr. Speaker has declared to be out of order.

Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As we have to approve the order, surely it is in order for hon. Members to say why they do not approve. That, I feel, is at the heart of what is being said.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is coming dangerously close to debating my ruling, and he must not do that. I hope that he and his hon. Friends will observe my ruling, and not seek either to challenge or to debate it.

Mr. Salmond

To oppose a salary increase for the entire ministerial team, I must be able to pass some comment on why I do not think that its members deserve such an increase. My hon. Friends and I will certainly oppose this unwarranted increase in the Lobby tonight, and I am sure that the House will be very interested in our justification for that opposition. I must therefore be allowed to pursue my argument about why the Leader of the House—or any other Minister—is not doing his job effectively.

Sir Hal Miller (Bromsgrove)

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has quite taken on board the fact that, if he opposed the order successfully, Ministers would receive more money than they would otherwise. That is a curious way for him to show his disapproval.

Mr. Salmond

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would therefore wish me to pursue my argument and to justify the placing of a question mark over these salary increases, be they the increases mentioned in the order or those that would apply if it were not carried. There is no doubt in my mind that the conduct of the Leader of the House does not match the way in which we expect Ministers to perform their duties if such large increases are to be justified.

The question is this—and I will accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a Minister, has the Leader of the House a special responsibility for saying that the House is able to follow its own Standing Orders? I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are a keen enforcer of those Standing Orders, as indeed you must be. It must surely be a serious matter that reflects on the appropriateness of a ministerial salary increase, if it is established that the Leader of the House is in some way responsible for failing to enforce one of its own Standing Orders, Standing Order No. 130. Surely that must influence the question of whether Ministers are entitled to a large increase, a modest increase or any increase at all.

Some people have argued that the fact that Standing Order No. 130 has not been enforced is not the responsibility of the Leader of the House, but that of other hon. Members. If that were so, Opposition Members could have no objection to an increase in the salary of the Leader of the House or that of any other Minister. Let us consider., however, the operation organised by the usual channels to try to ensure the political survival of the Prime Minister—backed enthusiastically, no doubt, by the Leader of the House and other Ministers—by cajoling and pressuring Conservative Back Benchers into giving their loyal support. Have the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues put the same effort into persuading and cajoling Back Benchers to assist the House in obeying Standing Order No. 130? I hope that the Leader of the House, who I am sure is paying rapt attention to the debate on ministerial salary increases, will deal with that point. It is a ministerial responsibility to establish the Scottish Select Committee and, according to Standing Orders, there is no requirement that there should be an automatic Government majority on Select Committees.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It is in order for the hon. Gentleman to say that he does not intend to support the motion because the Leader of the House has not, in his view, fulfilled his obligations under a particular Standing Order. However, it is not in order for the hon. Gentleman then to discuss in detail that particular failure, as he sees it, to implement the Standing Order. That is what I am ruling is out of order.

Mr. Sillars

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is very kind of you to make my hon. Friend's speech for him, but if it was in order for him to say that the Leader of the House should not get a salary increase, or should have his salary cut because he had not obeyed Standing Order No. 130, surely it is in order for him to justify that allegation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not question my ruling. I said that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) was entitled to express his view that a salary increase should be withheld from a particular Minister because of his failure to implement an obligation that, in his view, has been imposed upon him. He is not in order, however, to go into the details of that obligation. That has been said two or three times. I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) will accept my ruling without seeking to debate it further.

Mr. Salmond

I do not wish to pursue my arguments against ministerial salary increases, but may I put a final and helpful suggestion to the Leader of the House that would enable him to fulfil his responsibilities to the House and keep within Standing Orders. I ask him to accept that no fewer than 40 Scottish Back Benchers are willing to serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Therefore, the Select Committee could be set up forthwith. I commend that suggestion to him.

11.7 pm

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)

I have no particular wish to follow Mutt and Jeff, the barrack-room lawyers behind me, but there is a serious point to be made about the motion, without using trick language or ill-informed attempts to confuse. The result of dividing the House against the motion would lead to Ministers receiving more, not less money. That is somewhat confused thinking, even by the formidable standards of the Scottish National party.

Ever since it was first set up, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has had a tradition of boycott. Between 1980 and 1987 it was boycotted by the Scottish National party.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman heard my earlier rulings. I hope that he does not intend to ignore them.

Mr. Wilson

That was a mere historical footnote. It was boycotted in the past by the Scottish National party, which since 1987 has developed an enthusiasm for it. The Leader of the House should have something docked off his pay every time he nods off. Since 1987 the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will speak to the Ministerial and other Salaries Order, which so far he has failed to do.

Mr. Wilson

What I am saying relates directly to the order. Part of the job of the Leader of the House, for which he is paid that salary and this increase, is to set up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Like his predecessor, he has consistently failed to do so. We are entitled, not under the guise of bogus procedure but as a point of political fact and political dispute, to say that he has failed in that purpose and to demand that when he comes to the Dispatch Box he should say when he intends to do his job.

11.9 pm

Dr. Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead)

I should like to bring the debate back to the point at issue, which is whether we should increase ministerial salaries.

The differential between the pay of Members of Parliament and Ministers is far too narrow. I have always voted against increases in hon. Members' pay, but I do not in any way object to Ministers' salaries because they have immense responsibilities in addition to their constituency responsibilities. I shall vote for this increase, as I have done consistently.

11.10 pm

Mr. Jim Sillars (Glasgow, Govan)

I shall speak plainly from the start. I believe that there is a fix by the establishment in this debate. There is no question about that whatever. There is a fix by the establishment to ensure that there is no Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. There is a fix by the establishment to ensure that we cannot debate why there is no Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Member is not reflecting on Mr. Speaker's selection of amendments.

Mr. Sillars

That is a matter for your interpretation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not mine.

I repeat that there has been a fix by the establishment, and not for the first time, either. The strongest objections have to be made. I believe that I am entitled to argue, on a wide-ranging motion such as this, why I do not believe the motion should be carried.

One of those reasons is the inability, unwillingness, or perhaps deliberate unwillingness, of the Leader of the House to give effect to Standing Order No. 130 to ensure that a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is set up. He is not entitled to a salary increase because he did not set up a Select Committee, under Standing Order No. 130, to consider school boards in Scotland, because he did not set up a Select Committee, under Standing Order No. 130, to enable it to examine the steel industry in Scotland, because he did not set up, under Standing Order No. 130, a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs to examine environmental issues in Scotland, particularly Nirex, because he did not set up, under Standing Order No. 130, a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs which could examine water standards in Scotland, because he did not set up, under Standing Order No. 130, a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs which could examine in Glasgow the loss of £14 million this year and £16 million next year under the share formula that is operating in the National Health Service, or an examination of how the chairman of the Scottish Conservative party, who is a Minister—we are talking about ministerial salaries—appoints nobody but Tories to hospital boards all over Scotland.

It is perfectly reasonable to argue that the Leader of the House should not get a salary increase, and that no other Minister should get a salary increase, because of their failure to carry out Standing Order No. 130. Mr. Speaker wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) saying that setting up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is not the Leader of the House's responsibility and that the resolution of 20th December 1988 excuses the Committee from taking such action". That is a reference to the Committee of Selection acting under Standing Order No. 140. I have to disagree. I am sorry to offend Mr. Speaker. I believe that responsibility for Standing Order No. 130 rests squarely on the shoulders of the Leader of the House. He has failed to carry out his responsibilities to the Scottish people. If he looks way back to 1979, when this type of Select Committee was established, immediately after the Tories repealed the Scotland Act 1978, he will see that responsibility lies with the Government.

I believe that there has been a fix by the establishment. If the establishment is not prepared to stand by its own Standing Orders, it has a brass neck to expect us to stand by them. We will not do so and we shall take action at the appropriate time.

11.14 pm

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Cannock and Burntwood)

It was not my intention to intrude in the private feud between the Socialists in the Labour party in Scotland and the Socialists in the Scottish National party. However, as the matter affects some of my right hon. and hon. Friends I feel that I should contribute to the debate.

I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House as I was not in the Chamber when he stated his case, and I hope that he will not consider my intervention to be a discourtesy.

I understand the argument that it is the Government's responsibility to set an example to the nation, and in many ways hon. Members fall short on that—perhaps Opposition Members more than Conservative Members. However, it is a mistake to imagine that reducing ministerial or other salaries will do anything to combat inflation. As monetarists on the Conservative Benches will know, inflation is driven not by wage demands but by too much money in the economy chasing too few goods. To suggest that restraining Members' or Ministers' pay would contribute greatly to the battle against inflation would be to mislead the House.

It is not my intention to set myself up as the trade union negotiator on behalf of the Cabinet or other Ministers. I understand that the chairman of the board is listening to representations from all sides; therefore there is no need for me to do that. However, we would be mistaken if we were to believe that we are currying favour by saying that we must restrain Ministers' pay and set an example and play ourselves down.

There is something bizarre about a nation which prides itself on being better managed than it ever was paying Secretaries of State £44,591 when we pay each chairman of the nationalised industries, for which one Secretary of State is reponsible, sums ranging between £90,000 and£200,000 depending upon whether his name is Bob Reid mark 1 or Bob Reid mark 2. It is bizarre that we should have such an extraordinary discrepancy that the man responsible for running one part of a business is paid £200,000 and the man who has overall responsibility is paid £44,591, when the Prime Minister's salary is only£47,000. It is incumbent upon us to point out to people that that is bizarre.

Mr. Salmond

rose—

Mr. Howarth

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not have anything helpful to say, but I shall give way to him.

Mr. Salmond

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of people falling down on their responsibilities and the relative value of individual Ministers, would he care to comment on the relative value of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who has been reducing his ministerial responsibilities so that he can assume the chairmanship of the Conservative party in Scotland? In the light of that reduction in his ministerial responsibilities, does he merit a ministerial salary increase this evening?

Mr. Howarth

My hon. Friends believe that my hon. Friend the Minister is grossly underpaid for the tasks that he performs in Scotland. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) should consider how much my hon. Friend would be able to earn were he able to offer his service to the marketplace. He is making a sacrifice on behalf of the nation. The Scottish people will come not only to be grateful for but proud of his achievements.

My right hon. Friends who are responsible for the remaining nationalised industries should be given an increase in their salaries for every industry that they dispose of and return to private ownership. For every penny off income tax, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be given an increase in salary. In that way, we might introduce the concept of competition and incentives into the highest levels of Government.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Howarth

I will not give way because I believe that the House wishes to move to a Division. I note your assent, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to that proposal.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) was not given an answer to his point about differentials. There is a considerable narrowing in the differentials between Ministers, of whatever rank, who are charged with an enormous and increasing work load. We ordinary, old, bloody infantry on the Back Benches do not believe that we serve any valuable purpose in allowing that to continue. Those who accept office make an increasing sacrifice, because they are normally younger people who have families and additional responsibilities.

Sir Hal Miller

What about the Montego?

Mr. Howarth

If my west midlands friend, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller), honestly thinks that riding around in the back of a 1.6 Montego constitutes a great privilege, his sense of priorities are different from mine. It is interesting that suddenly the Opposition are changing their policies because they want to get their backsides on the back seat of a Montego 1.6L. That is the height of their ambitions.

I think that I have made my points, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House has noted some of them.

11.22 pm

Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East)

The purpose of our opposition this evening is to make the point that the Leader of the House is not doing his work and does not deserve the salary that he receives.

My hon. Friends have said that the Select Committee on Scotland is needed. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, ruled them out of order when they tried to give the reasons why it should be considering Scotland's environment, its steel industry, the crisis facing its fishing industry and a range of other issues. The Leader of the House has failed in his duty by not carrying out the Standing Orders of the House. It is ironic, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you tell hon. Members to obey the Standing Orders of the House, yet he cannot be told to obey those self-same Standing Orders.

In a letter to me, Mr. Speaker rightly pointed out that there are certain Standing Orders that he is duty-bound to follow because they lay obligations specifically on his shoulders, but there are other Standing Orders, such as Standing Order No. 130, which make it clear that there shall be a Scottish Select Committee. That is linked to Standing Order No. 104, which says that it is the duty of the Committee of Selection to produce that Committee. The Leader of the House is failing in his obligations to the Standing Orders by not implementing them. The resolution of 20 December merely said that the House recognises the inability of the Committee of Selection to produce the Committee. The Committee of Selection was not unable but unwilling to do so. The Leader of the House should implement the Standing Orders to be worthy of the salary that we are discussing.

The order concerns the rights and powers of Parliament to scrutinise the Executive. It is the duty of the Leader of the House to allow Back-Benchers to exercise proper scrutiny of the Administration. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not fulfilled that duty, so how can he deserve his salary? The Scottish Office is the only major Department whose activities are not surveyed by a Select Committee. Such scrutiny is especially important given that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is chairman of the Scottish Conservative party as well as a Minister. The Leader of the House should give the House, through the Select Committee, the power to scrutinise the connection between party politics and the Executive. It is important to scrutinise what is happening, but at the minute Scotland is being denied that right.

The Leader of the House should be worthy of his hire, but he has failed the House and Scotland. The resolution of December 1988 applied to the previous Session. If its powers are to be exercised once more, that resolution should come before the House again. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is to be worthy of his hire he should establish a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs so that Members representing Scotland have the opportunity to question Scottish Ministers. We cannot ask English Ministers about Scottish matters as that would be ruled out of order.

The Leader of the House should earn his money by doing right by Scotland. Members representing Scotland should have the right to scrutinise the Administration—[Interruption.] We should be free from such abuse. All English Members can do is shout as they have no interest in Scotland. When they turn out on occasions such as this it is akin to organised hooliganism.

Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes)

Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I sat on the Committee that considered the Self-Governing Schools Etc. (Scotland) Bill earlier this year.

Mr. Welsh

The hon. Gentleman makes my point. I have been elected by the Scottish people, but I was not allowed to be a member of that Committee. He represents an English constituency and had no interest in the subject, yet he was a member of the Committee. That proves how little the House is willing to do for Scotland. The Conservatives, in organised collaboration and ably abetted by the Labour party, ensure that failure. It is about time that Scotland counted in this place, but that will probably never happen. We have the answer—we should return to our Parliament. The hon. Gentleman makes that case for us. I hope that the television cameras will show how little hon. Members representing England care about my country.

The Leader of the House should take such matters into account. He is a unionist and he wants to preserve the system whereby Scotland is meaningless. To earn his salary the right hon. and learned Gentleman should ensure that Scotland is taken into account. The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is in his remit and he should prove that he is fulfilling his duty and earning his money. Mr. Speaker is not duty-bound by the relevant Standing Orders, but the Leader of the House should implement them. Surely he has some connection with the Committee of Selection, whose duty under the Standing Orders is to produce a Scottish Select Committee. We are bound by the Standing Orders and so should be the Leader of the House.

The Leader of the House should be worthy of his hire and he should do something, for once, for Scotland.

11.28 pm

Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill)

As a life-long trade unionist, I believe that the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) and his colleagues have got it slightly wrong. There is a certain rate for a job and, although the rate for this particular job is grossly over-inflated, that rate is tied to the job and not to the individual who holds the post.

If I were the shop steward in this dispute, I would argue to the hon. Member for Angus, East that the proper course of action would be not to reduce the salary, but to give a verbal warning to the incumbent of the post about his failings. If that was not sufficient, I would follow it up with a written warning, and if the individual still failed to carry out his duties properly he could get the sack. The same argument applied to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor.

The Leader of the House could be saved from that eventual fate if Members such as the hon. Members for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and others who suddenly acquire a great interest in Scotland late at night or during Scottish questions were willing to serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. That would solve the problem, and the House would stop wasting its time in this fashion.

11.29 pm

Sir Geoffrey Howe

There is one point on which I would not wish the House to be under any misapprehension. The notion was put across, as a result of some intervention, that if the order were to fall, ministerial salaries would be increased more substantially than if the order were passed. I must remove that misapprehension from hon. Members' minds. If the order fell, Ministers in another place would get nothing and Ministers in this House would get an increase of only £1,953. I hope that those who are moved with sympathy for the motion will retain that emotion firmly in the front of their minds.

I shall say nothing about the observations of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), who claims as one of his leisure-time occupations the role of writer of fiction and who tried his best in his speech. I turn to the observations which have flickered recurrently across the debate and which came from hon. Members from north of the border, particularly the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) and for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). The simple answer to their question is that the issue of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs was debated on 20 December 1988, as I said in the debate on the Loyal Address. The conclusion was reached when the House recognised the inability of the Committee of Selection to nominate Members to serve on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee in accordance with Standing Order No. 104(2). That was a conclusion reached by the House, not by me. I urge the hon. Member for Govan to disabuse himself of the idea that there has been any fix by the establishment and still more to disabuse himself of the idea that by making such allegations he can establish a kind of pre-emptive alibi for himself.

Mr. Salmond

The conclusion to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers was reached last Session. Does he not think that there is a responsibility in this new Session to have a fresh debate on whether the House will obey its Standing Orders? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as Leader of the House, feel some special responsibility for seeing the implementation of Standing Order No. 130?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

Because I recognised the importance of that point, I addressed myself to the issue and made the position clear in my first speech in the current Session in the debate on the Loyal Address, notwithstanding a certain amount of unwelcoming hubbub from the Opposition.

Mr. Sillars

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I am afraid that I will not give way, because I must draw to a conclusion.

I appreciated the support from my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn), who was alert, as always, in our interests; my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), who is always the source of helpful quotations of many kinds; and, above all, my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), who gave us a lucid exposition of his analysis of the causes of inflation. Like him, I am a monetarist. I regard monetary supply as having great importance in the control of inflation. I would go a little further—I regard the exemplary management of salaries as a sensible part of good management, not to be entirely disregarded in achieving a sensible reaction to proper monetary discipline. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's other point that differentials tend to get squeezed disagreeably at a time of inflation. That is a strong reason for seeking to get on top of inflation.

My judgment about the validity of the salaries that are generally available under this Administration has been that they have been sufficient to recruit and retain Ministers of suitable talent. Here I look at my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). There was a happy time—I hope that it was happy—when he served as my parliamentary private secretary. Suddenly, he was offered a ministerial position, and the massive enhancement in salary was sufficient to recruit him to the Front Bench forthwith and retain him there ever since. That is a fairly practical judgment.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Maryhill, who sought to protect me from the erosion of my salary even though she threatened me with the prospect of a verbal ticking off from herself, which is almost more alarming.

I commend the order to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 124, Noes 17.

Division No. 16]	[11.34 pm
AYES
Alexander, Richard	Harris, David
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Haselhurst, Alan
Amess, David	Hayes, Jerry
Amos, Alan	Hind, Kenneth
Arbuthnot, James	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)	Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Ashby, David	Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Atkinson, David	Irvine, Michael
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)	Jack, Michael
Batiste, Spencer	Janman, Tim
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Bevan, David Gilroy	King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Boswell, Tim	Knapman, Roger
Bottomley, Peter	Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Bright, Graham	Latham, Michael
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Lawrence, Ivan
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)	Lilley, Peter
Buck, Sir Antony	Maclean, David
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Malins, Humfrey
Chapman, Sydney	Mans, Keith
Chope, Christopher	Martlew, Eric
Colvin, Michael	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Dixon, Don	Miller, Sir Hal
Dorrell, Stephen	Mills, Iain
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Duffy, A. E. P.	Mitchell, Sir David
Durant, Tony	Moss, Malcolm
Favell, Tony	Neubert, Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Fishburn, John Dudley	Nicholls, Patrick
Fookes, Dame Janet	Norris, Steve
Forman, Nigel	Page, Richard
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Paice, James
Forth, Eric	Patnick, Irvine
Foster, Derek	Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Freeman, Roger	Pawsey, James
French, Douglas	Pike, Peter L.
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Gill, Christopher	Porter, David (Waveney)
Glyn, Dr Alan	Portillo, Michael
Goodlad, Alastair	Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles	Rhodes James, Robert
Gregory, Conal	Ryder, Richard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Sackville, Hon Tom
Grocott, Bruce	Shaw, David (Dover)
Hague, William	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	Sims, Roger
Hanley, Jeremy	Skeet, Sir Trevor

Speller, Tony	Warren, Kenneth
Steen, Anthony	Wells, Bowen
Stern, Michael	Wheeler, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)	Widdecombe, Ann
Stradling Thomas, Sir John	Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)	Wilshire, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)	Winterton, Nicholas
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)	Wolfson, Mark
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)	Wood, Timothy
Thurnham, Peter
Twinn, Dr Ian	Tellers for the Ayes:
Viggers, Peter	Mr. David Lightbown and
Waller, Gary	Mr. Michael Fallon.
NOES
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Parry, Robert
Beggs, Roy	Salmond, Alex
Beith, A. J.	Sillars, Jim
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Skinner, Dennis
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Wallace, James
Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Cryer, Bob	Tellers for the Noes:
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Mr. Michael Welsh and
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)	Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones.
Meale, Alan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 1st December, be approved.