§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)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) In respect of service in 1994—
- (a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate of £31,687; and
- (b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate of £23,854.
- (2) In respect of service in 1995—
- (a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the sum of £32,538 but increased by the relevant percentage for that year; and
- (b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the sum of £24,495 but increased by the relevant percentage for that year.
- (3) In respect of service in any subsequent year—
- (a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the salary of an ordinary Member for the preceding year but increased by the relevant percentage for that subsequent year; and
- (b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the salary of a salaried Member for the preceding year but increased by the relevant percentage for that subsequent year.
- (4) For the purposes of this Resolution—
- (a) an ordinary Member is a Member of this House other than a salaried Member;
- (b) a salaried Member is an Officer of this House or any Member of this House 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; and
- (c) the relevant percentage for any year ("the relevant year") is the percentage by which, as a result of any pay settlement in the preceding year and any stage taking effect in that year of an earlier pay settlement, the average annual salary (disregarding allowances) on 1st January in the relevant year of the persons covered by the 1992 Pay Agreement for Grades 5 to 7 has increased compared with that average on 1st January in the preceding year.
§ Madam SpeakerI have to tell the House that all the amendments on the Order Paper may be referred to in the debate, but I have selected only amendment (a) in the name of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
§ Mr. NewtonI understand that it will be convenient to discuss the other two motions on the Order Paper:
That the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—I should first remind the House briefly of the background from our debate just under a year ago, on 25 November 1992, when the House agreed that there should be no pay increase for Members of Parliament in January 1993.That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 1st November, be approved.
- (1) In respect of service in 1994—
- (a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate of £31,687; and
- (b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate of £23,854.
- (2) In respect of service in 1995—
- (a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the sum of £32,538 but increased by the relevant percentage for that year; and
- (b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the sum of £24,495 but increased by the relevant percentage for that year.
- (3) In respect of service in any subsequent year—
- (a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the salary of an ordinary Member for the preceding year but increased by the relevant percentage for that subsequent year; and
- (b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the salary of a salaried Member for the preceding year but increased by the relevant percentage for that subsequent year.
- (4) For the purposes of this Resolution—
458
- (a) an ordinary Member is a Member of this House other than a salaried Member;
- (b) a salaried Member is an Officer of this House or any Member of this House 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; and
- (c) the relevant percentage for any year ("the relevant year") is the percentage by which, as a result of any pay settlement in the preceding year and any stage taking effect in that year of an earlier pay settlement, the average annual salary (disregarding allowances) on 1st January in the relevant year of the persons covered by the 1992 Pay Agreement for Grades 5 to 7 has increased compared with that average on 1st January in the preceding year.
In that debate, I gave two clear undertakings, which were, I think, of importance to Members in coming to their decision at that time. The first was that the Government accepted the case for an automatic linkage with the civil service and would seek to re-establish it once the revised structure of civil service pay had been settled. The second was that the Government did not intend that Members should be permanently disadvantaged by the loss of the 3.9 per cent. awarded to civil servants in August 1992, which Members could in normal circumstances have expected to receive in January 1993.
In framing the proposals that I am putting to the House today, I have sought to fulfil those commitments, while at the same time imposing a significant constraint on the pay of Members, in line with the Government's approach to public sector pay. Thus, the realignment of Members' pay will take place over a period of two years, with the settlement for 1995 bringing Members in line with the civil servants with whom they were formerly linked.
The purpose of the motions is to honour the undertakings given, but to do so in a way which not only acknowledges the continued need for restraint. In fact—this is a point to which I shall return—taking the period from the end of 1992 to the beginning of 1995 as a whole, the motions ask Members to accept greater, not less, restraint than has been asked of civil servants and, indeed, others in the public sector.
Before returning to that point, let me outline the provisions of the motions. The first two deal with the pay of Members, including the reduced parliamentary pay of those who also receive a salary under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975. That latter category covers not only all Ministers but the Leader of the Opposition; the Opposition Chief Whip; the Opposition Deupty Chief Whip; you, Madam Speaker; my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) who, as a former Prime Minister, is in receipt of a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1972; the Chairman of Ways and Means; and the two Deputy Speakers.
The motions provide that, in January 1994, the full parliamentary salary should be increased from £30,854 to £31,687, and the reduced parliamentary salary from £23,227 to £23,854, both representing an increase of 2.7 per cent. They further propose that, in January 1995, the full parliamentary salary should be increased to £32,538, 459 and the reduced parliamentary salary to £24,495—in both cases an increase of 2.68 per cent. on the 1994 salary—together with an amount reflecting the pay settlement for civil service grades 5 to 7 in the forthcoming year. Thus, automatic linkage with civil service pay increases would be re-established in January 1995, after a two-year break. The same automatic linkage would then apply in each year thereafter, without the need for further resolution of the House.
The third motion concerns the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order which is also before the House. This applies the same percentage increase in salary in 1994 as for Members, except that Ministers in the other place who are not in receipt of a parliamentary salary would receive an increase in salary equivalent in cash terms to the increase experienced by their counterparts in this House.
The order relating to Ministers can, under the terms of the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975, deal only with 1994. However, I should make it clear to the House that the Government think that the right course henceforth is for the salaries of Ministers and the others whom I mentioned earlier to be dealt with on exactly the same basis as Members—that is to say, in effect linked to the percentage increases in the average salaries of civil service grades 5 to 7.
Before coming back to what Members will no doubt see as the main issue, I should perhaps explain in a little more detail the reasons for proposing this new form of linkage, the basis of it, and the way in which it is expected to operate.
As I said last year, the need for a new resolution arises from the move to performance-related pay in the civil service, which had the effect of making the previously established linkage—89 per cent. of the national scale maximum for grade 6 civil servants—no longer a reliable one.
That is because, whereas in the past a settlement of a certain percentage for grades 5 to 7 was applied evenly to all points on the salary scale, so that the top, middle and bottom of the scale progressed in the same proportions, under the new arrangements different points of the new pay range can move at different rates. In the current year, for example, the 1.5 per cent. award has been applied so that the bottom of the scale remains static while the maximum payable will increase by 8 per cent. In later years, a quite different pattern could occur. So linkage to a notional point on the range in the new system could produce uplifts markedly higher or lower than the overall award, which, in their effects on Members of Parliament, would be virtually arbitrary.
Some confusion has been caused by the current pay arrangements for grades 5 to 7 still showing the old scale maximum, and some Members have suggested to me that this could continue to be used. However, this point on the scale is being used only as part of the assimilation arrangements in respect of some reserved rights under the old system, will continue only for a short period and is therefore of no value for the permanent purpose which Members of Parliament wish to see restored.
What the Government are therefore proposing is a measure that would not link Members to a specific point, but would ensure that Members' pay progressed in line with the average settlement for grades 5 to 7. The linkage 460 would be with the average increase in pay experienced by grades 5 to 7 as a result of their pay settlement, and is the closest equivalent to the old linkage available under the new system.
Thus, as part of the return to parity with civil servants in January 1995, and in each January thereafter, Members will receive a pay award worth the same as that received the previous August by grades 5 to 7 under their pay agreement. Members will note from the resolution that they would also receive any element of staging awarded during the year. The cost of the grades 5 to 7 award, expressed as a percentage of the total pay bill, will be issued in a letter to civil service establishment officers soon after the settlement, and the same percentage would be used to uprate Members' pay. In other words, we shall then have a link which covers a broader range of civil service grades, which is durable and which can be used for the foreseeable future.
§ Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)That being so, will the Leader of the House take a few minutes to explain why there should be a linkage mechanism or formula that applies to Members of this House which is superior to any other pay formula affecting anyone in the public service? As everybody knows, there is one group of workers who have such a specific, dedicated fomula and it was to be overturned—the firefighters. Although that did not happen, there was such a specific formula. Why should the linkage for our salaries be superior to any other linkage operating in the public sector? Could he also say—[Interruption.] No, I will not ask my other question.
§ Mr. NewtonI do not fully understand how the hon. Gentleman can make that point when the basic proposition is that, far from being superior to what is proposed for other parts of the public sector, the whole point is to ensure that our salaries are specifically and directly linked to what happens across three grades of the Civil Service on average. That is clear, and cannot be presented as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise to the Leader of the House for intervening, but can a message be sent to the Reasons Committee to say that they need not hurry as their Lordships have risen for the day?
§ Madam SpeakerThat is not a point of order for me.
§ Mr. NewtonI now return, as I said earlier that I would, to what the figures that we are proposing to ask of Members, bearing in mind the crucial fact that, unlike any other group in the public sector, they have had no pay increase whatever since January 1992, and that the proper comparisons are with what has happened elsewhere over a period of not one year but two.
§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)Before the Leader of the House goes further, what consideration has he given to the widely reported cases of Members, mainly those behind him, who double or treble their salaries through consultancies and directorships, solely on the basis of being a Member of this House? Is it not time that all Members had one full-time job—that of being a Member of Parliament? Members should be expected to live on that salary and no other, in the interests of democracy and public decency.
§ Mr. NewtonThe subject which the hon. Gentleman raises is touched on in one of the amendments which you, Madam Speaker, said could be discussed during the debate, and the hon. Gentleman will doubtless seek to make a speech if he catches your eye. I do not intend to let my speech be diverted from what I consider are the main issues to the sort of point which he has raised.
Although we do not yet know the precise increase in the retail price index in the period from January 1992 to next January when the 2.7 per cent. increase proposed in the motion would take effect, we know that it is already 4.6 per cent. higher in September than when Members' present pay was set. So it is simply not true to say that the increase exceeds inflation in the relevant period. It is significantly less.
The key points are, first, that Members received no pay increase in 1993, and that their current salary is based on an award made to grade 6 civil servants as long ago as August 1991. Secondly, civil servants have over the same period received two settlements totalling 5.45 per cent. —3.9 per cent in August 1992 and 1.5 per cent. under pay restraint in August 1993. Thirdly, the 2.7 per cent. now proposed for January 1994 is only half that amount. Indeed, under these proposals Members will not receive the remainder of the increase that civil servants received in 1992 until January 1995. Fourthly, when parity is finally restored in January 1995, Members will have experienced exactly the same overall restraint over the two years 1993 and 1994. They will have reached exactly the same point of increase as civil servants—no more and no less.
However, because the increases received by Members will have lagged significantly behind their civil service comparators during that period, they will have lost permanently—I need to put this uncomfortable fact to the House—some £2,000 each, compared to what they would have received had normal arrangements applied, and compared to what their civil service comparators actually received.
§ Mr. NewtonI am bringing my speech to a conclusion, and many hon. Members will wish to contribute to the debate.
We are asking not for less constraint but for more. Our proposals are a fair and balanced compromise between the commitments given to Members last year, the undoubted need for continuing pay restraint, and the desirability of re-establishing a clear and sustainable mechanism for determining Members' pay in the future. I commend them to the House.
§ Mrs. Margaret Beckett (Derby, South)As all hon. Members know, this is an issue for the House as a whole, and one on which there will be a free vote. It is for each hon. Member to make his or her own decision. I shall be as brief as I can, in order to allow those who wish to speak to do so.
As the Leader of the House properly pointed out, last year the Government announced a public-sector pay freeze which was opposed by many Opposition Members—especially because some of the most highly paid public servants were not being affected in the same way. We also 462 expressed concern about the breaking of the existing link with civil service pay, for which the House had voted repeatedly.
I welcome—on behalf, I think, of many hon. Members on both sides of the House—the announcement that some form of linkage will be restored. Whatever the problems with the present system, I cannot think that it is not superior to the previous system, under which hon. Members were required to make an inevitably somewhat arbitrary decision every year.
I admit to some nervousness about having to accept that the Government have changed the form of the link in case the result of the previous formula proved unacceptable; but that is simply to put down a marker for a precedent that might be being set. It would negate the purpose of the link if we all accepted that, every time the result did not suit the Government, they could change the link. In no sense am I arguing for the award of a larger sum than that contained in the settlement; however, I think it right to touch briefly on what was said by the Leader of the House, and to allude to what are, after all, the facts.
The pay of Members of Parliament has been frozen for two years. It has not increased since the end of 1991 and the beginning of 1992. As the Leader of the House pointed out, over that period inflation had risen by 5.4 per cent. The Government's proposal is for half that inflation rate to be recognised this year, and for the other half to be recognised in January 1995. That is not, as most commentators seem to have suggested, an increase above the rate of inflation; it is—properly, in the circumstances—below that rate.
Every hon. Member knows that there is never a good time to increase the pay of Members of Parliament by so much as a ha'penny, regardless of the rate of inflation or the circumstances of the rest of the community. Those in the news media, who earn far more than any of us, will be loud in their condemnation; in fairness, so will many members of the general public who do not earn as much. Most people, however, rightly expect their Members of Parliament to work full time in the interests of their constituents: they expect them to do a proper job, and I believe that most expect them to receive a proper rate of pay.
I am a trade unionist, and I believe in a fair rate for the job. I do not abandon that principle solely for Members of Parliament or other public servants—especially because I am aware that many Members of Parliament on both sides of the House, myself included, are forced to subsidise their office and other costs to maintain any semblance of a fair rate of pay for their staff.
That leads me to another point—one that I always feel should be made in these debates. I believe that a fair rate for the job should be paid irrespective of a person's other circumstances. I have always believed, however, that each hon. Member—free as he is both to speak and, in particular, to vote as he chooses—also has a degree of proper responsibility to his colleagues. For that reason, I have always exercised my freedom to comment on hon. Members' pay awards with some reticence.
When I was first elected, I was a single woman without family responsibilities. Within three months, I was drawing a junior Minister's salary. That made me very conscious, when issues of Members' pay arose, that I was not facing the financial pressures faced by many of my colleagues—particularly sole earners, often with family responsibilities, and those who, unlike me, had had to establish a fresh London base. I was working in London at 463 the time. That has always made me very sensitive to the problems that other hon. Members in less favourable financial circumstances might be facing, and very unwilling to add my voice to the condemnation of those who think that this is a fair rate for the job.
§ Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)What is the worth of a Member of Parliament is a very difficult question. The salary that we are currently proposing to alter is attached to an arbitrary percentage of the pay of a grade in the civil service which no longer exists. It is the grade that I was on 27 years ago—scarcely the progress of a greedy man.
It is difficult to determine the amount that any one of us should earn, because as the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has said, some of us have young families, others have children who have left home, while some lucky ones have children who earn a living. It is therefore very difficult for any individual Member to comment on the pay that should be paid to others.
How should the public value us? What do they see? They see a number of supposedly grown-up people shuffling through the Lobbies not just once or twice but five or six times in succession, almost entirely careless and ignorant of the detail of what we are voting about. Among our number in the Lobby is almost every senior Minister, no matter how delicate the negotiations in which they are involved, nor how far they may have travelled that day or are about to travel across the world. Many members of the public wonder how well equipped our Ministers can possibly be to take on Jacques Delors, Gerry Adams or Saddam Hussein when they are faced with such a working schedule.
This Parliament of ours, of whose history we are so rightly proud, is dying on its feet in many respects. It is true that sometimes we have a moment of glory, or at least of undeniable idiosyncrasy, such as the interminable debates on the Maastricht treaty, which at least covered a number of the matters under debate. Those moments, however, are not typical.
We claim that we are here to control the Executive, but that claim is difficult to sustain when that Executive propose the business, guillotine the business and virtually never lose their business. We claim that we call the Executive to account. As we heard recently, the Public Accounts Committee, with its creature the auditor, does its best to track the path of some small part of public expenditure. To suggest that we here call effectively to account an Executive whose patronage extends ever further through British institutions is to delude ourselves. For half the Members in the House, the Chamber is but the antechamber to membership of the Government or the Opposition Front Bench. Of course they are very reluctant to see trimmed the powers to which they soon hope to aspire.
Much of this complaint is hardly new, but it is given a new urgency by two elements. The first is the creation of the European union and a real seepage of power from this place to Europe. Our mechanisms for monitoring the European Community are grossly inadequate. The House knows it and the public know it. The result is a further 464 erosion of our reputation as a legislature and with it an erosion of our reputation as individual Members of Parliament.
The second new element is that, after 14 years of Conservative government, virtually every other institution in the land has been subjected to scrutiny and reform. We alone seem to be content to watch our effectiveness decline and our power relative to the Executive diminish, without making any coherent attempt to change our ways.
We live in an age when respect for individuals and institutions has almost disappeared. That may not matter very much. A. J. P. Taylor suggested that the respect with which the British people held the people who were in authority varied in inverse proportion to the prosperity of the nation. So it may not matter if we are not held in great respect, but it does matter to this United Kingdom if its legislature spends most of its time on work peripheral to the nation's needs; and if that legislature leaves but little time for those things that it does especially well.
Before we start seriously considering what we should be paid, we should ask ourselves what on earth we are doing.
§ Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)I intervene briefly as chairman of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund to report to the House on one effect of last year's decision to freeze parliamentary pay which, regrettably, is not very widely understood.
In the pay debate on 25 November 1992, I pointed out on behalf of the managing trustees that, if a Member of Parliament were to die during the pay freeze, the effect on the incomes of her or his dependants would-be lifelong if no way could be found to protect them. This is because the pensions and other benefits payable to widows, widowers and other dependants from the PCPF are based on the parliamentary salary in the deceased Member's last year of service and take no account of any subsequent increase in the salary to compensate for a period of pay freeze.
The untimely death of our much respected former colleague Judith Chaplin turned what was then a hypothetical problem into a very real and urgent one for the managing trustees of the pension fund. Unable to use that fund to help, we had to resort to the House of Commons Members' fund, to which all Members contribute, month by month, to help former colleagues and their dependants at times of urgent and special need.
§ Mr. John Garrett (Norwich, South)What was the problem when the fund was so over-funded that the Treasury cut its contribution?
§ Mr. MorrisThere is no power, as the Leader of the House will confirm, available to the trustees to top up the benefits of dependants in the case of a death of a Member in service.
§ Mr. GarrettChange the rules, then.
§ Mr. MorrisThe rules are frequently altered. We have secured, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, a great many improvements in the scheme in recent years, and others are in the pipeline; but others we have sought have still to be secured.
The Members fund, although it was not introduced for that purpose, was in fact the only possible means of ensuring that a bereaved family would not be made lifelong 465 losers by the pay freeze. What we did, with help from the Members fund, was to base the death in service payment and other benefits on a notional salary equal to that which our late colleague would have been paid if the freeze had not been imposed. We did the same of course, in the case of the late Robert Adley's family.
This could, however, only be a temporary measure to help the bereaved families most affected by the pay freeze and, as I hope to be able to explain in tomorrow's debate on pensions, the trustees of the pension fund have been working on the additional voluntary contribution scheme of which the Lord President is aware, and on which we can comment in more detail in tomorrow's debate. Among other provisions, the new scheme will give Members the opportunity to increase their pension benefits during periods of pay restraint.
It will be seen that the trustees have been at the thick end of problems created by the suspension, last year, of the parliamentary pay formula, and I hope that it will be agreed that they have done all that was possible to protect the families of Members who have died in service since the formula was suspended. The problem will be a continuing one until the value of the pay formula agreed by the House is restored, but the AVC scheme should at least limit its seriousness.
The moral of all this is that, when the House takes decisions like that taken last November to freeze parliamentary pay, it should have regard to the effect not only on members but also on widows and other dependants. For them, the consequences might not simply be of passing concern, but financially very hurtful, keenly resented and lifelong.
§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)We have heard three really good speeches and. I add to that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe).
The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the deputy leader of the Labour party, spoke briefly and with a great deal of common sense. Her speech will have been appreciated by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House spelt out the current position, which is generally well understood by the media. That is one reason why we were not subject to the attacks we have suffered in previous years.
Let me give my view of what we ought to be doing. The House should set a level of pay in one Parliament to come into effect at the beginning of the next Parliament and, once set at an appropriate level, it should be left unchanged from one general election to another.
The level of pay is debatable. My personal view, which is not a matter for debate, as there is not an amendment or a motion to that effect tonight, is that it ought to be set at roughly the same level as a general practitioner in medicine. I am not arguing for it now, but giving my view on what it should be.
I do not believe that the present level of pay is appropriate for those who are waiting to become Ministers in a future Government—for example those Labour Members who have waited 14 years, and who may have to wait another 14 years. It is always awkward to have increases during a Parliament, and to settle the pay increase just after a general election, as used to be the case, causes difficulty to many people.
466 In the interim, it is better that the Government's motions should be approved, but I shall vote for amendment (a) if it is moved, as I do not believe that, just because a level of pay is set, it is compulsory for Members to take it. The situations and circumstances of Members of Parliament vary enormously—mine have. In the years when I was the only Member of Parliament in my family, my circumstances were different from what they are now. It is not easy to say what other people should be putting up with.
What happens between elections is normally a consequence of inflation rather than a general readjustment of the level of pay. That is the argument against regular increases during a Parliament. If the electorate and those who select candidates believe Members of Parliament not worth the general level of pay, in effect they are saying that only the very rich or the very poor should afford to become Members of Parliament.
Most of our constituents like to be represented by people in the middle-income groups, and people with middling levels of achievement or some concern for the welfare of those around them, as well as for their own material well-being, should be able to become Members of Parliament.
It is not the most important issue to our electors or to us, but it is worth resolving. The Government were right to put these general motions to the House.
§ Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead)I beg to move amendment (a), in subsection (1)(a) leave out '£31,687' and insert '£30,854'.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) mentioned the weakness of my position, and I wish to begin there. She was right to point out that some Members of Parliament have many more responsibilities than others and, therefore, it is less appropriate for those with fewest positions to speak to my amendment.
Given that I am mindful of the feelings of right hon. and hon. Members, particularly those with greater responsibilities than mine, I am grateful for the chance to explain why I tabled the amendment.
I should much prefer to address the House from a position of strength rather than one of weakness, but my position is bound up with an argument. At any one time, the number of people in work is linked to the size of the wage packets taken by those in work. Therefore, there is a link between the size of pay packets and unemployment.
Let us consider what may be the situation in the public sector next year, if the Government say that there should be a pay freeze. In any one year, about 500,000 people who work in the public sector die, retire or leave their jobs for other reasons. The question that workers in the public sector will face is whether we fill those positions from among those who do not now have jobs, or do not fill them, but instead share among ourselves the wage packets that would have gone to people who are unemployed. The Government will be able to maintain that there is a pay freeze, but that we can have a pay increase of 5 per cent. That will be a crucial issue for the public sector next year, and I wish to participate in the discussion. It will be difficult to participate if we have not applied the same lesson to ourselves.
467 All of us—not only Labour Members—now represent constituencies scarred by unemployment. I should like to be able to tell the House that I am now hardened to those men—I say "men" without shame, because, over the past 15 years, there has been an increase in jobs for women and a collapse in the number of decently paid jobs for men—who come to my surgery, laugh, and say that they are now impervious to the fact that they will not get a job, so they are working the system. But while their mouths smile, their wintry eyes tell another tale.
I should like to be able to tell the House that I am hardened to that, but I am definitely not hardened to the situation when male constituents come into my surgery and simply cry as they tell me how life has been shattered, and they believe that it will not be put together again, because all that the future holds for them is unemployment.
Rightly, we are debating the prospect of increasing our pay. If we do that, the wage bill increases by £1 million in any one year. That £1 million could be spent differently; it need not go to us. I do not in any way say that Members of Parliament do not deserve the money or should not have it, but I want to register the fact that at any one time there is a link between the level of pay awards and the number of people in employment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Prove it."] I have been trying to prove that case with my argument about the public sector. [HON. MEMBERS: "You have not done it very well."] Perhaps, as my hon. Friends are saying, I have failed to present a powerful enough logical case to convince hon. Members or to marshal my argument with enough eloquence to convince them.
None the less, I believe that, if we are to hold out any hope to our constituents, we all have to face the question: are we prepared to share our rewards with those who are unemployed? There may be less painful ways of moving back towards full employment, but, if there are, we have not heard of them. This is one, but only one, method that is practical and could be implemented.
We are debating our pay and our rightful rewards, but we could give the debate about unemployment a total change of gear. We could call a halt to the phoney war that has raged over unemployment for the past 20 years, and give the debate a change of direction the like of which has not been seen for a long time.
§ 12.3 am
§ Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and Devon, West)We are all embarrassed at having to discuss our own pay. It is an especially unpleasant thing to have to do, and I ask the House to have the kindness to listen for a moment or two while I explore why such a debate is so embarrassing, and whether there is any other way in which the pay of Members of Parliament could be determined. I was forced to think about the subject at lunchtime today, because "The World at One" telephoned me and said that the programme had to have a Member of Parliament to balance a health care worker in a discussion on the increase in Members' pay.
I wanted to vote against the motion, but I felt it my duty to vote in favour, for a variety of perhaps unquantified reasons. Because I had to speak on "The World at One", I had to think through my position, and I found myself justifying the motion as effectively as I could.
468 There is a natural suspicion among us all of those who set their own rate of pay. It is an odd piece of authority to have. It is quite rare in our society, but we do have that authority. Other people who have the capacity to set their own rates of pay, such as directors of public companies, are subject to fierce and proper criticism from us as well as from the public, and at least they are responsive to shareholders.
Although we are technically accountable to the electorate, in this matter we are so far away from electoral accountability that there is no link at all. No ballot box is based on the way we vote on Members' pay: it is based on a bundle of many things. Directors are accountable to shareholders at an annual general meeting, and their rates of pay can be formally criticised.
Despite the fact that hon. Members find this debate embarrassing and always have done—that is shown by the shortness of the speeches, if no other indicator exists—we continue to vote ourselves pay rises, so we presumably feel that we deserve them. I want to deal with the reasons for that view.
I have a high regard, both personally and professionally, for the deputy Leader of the Opposition. However, I argue strongly against her reason—it is a commonly held perception—for justifying our pay rises, which is that some people have larger family responsibilities than others. Without meaning to be personally critical, I must say that that is an outdated and irrelevant argument. In what other line of work in the modern world would we allow rates of pay to be determined by family responsibilities? The rate should be determined by the value of the person performing the job—in other words, market forces.
It is extraordinary that, in the modern world, we should be discussing rates of pay and justifying them for any job in the United Kingdom on the basis of family responsibilities, friendships or who has particular income levels external to their rates of pay. Are we not able to look at the job we do and assess whether it is worth a particular rate of pay?
§ Mrs. BeckettI do not wish to detain the hon. Lady, but I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that people's rates of pay should be set by their family circumstances. I am suggesting that those of us who are under less financial pressure than others should perhaps have regard to that fact in our criticisms of whether a pay rise should be awarded.
§ Miss NicholsonWith respect, that is merely the same argument turned round and addressed another way. Those of us who are or have been employers outside the House of Commons know that it would be nonsense to look at a group of employees and say that one must be more sensitive to a particular person's pay rise because of their background or family responsibilities. It is an inappropriate way in which to determine the rate of pay.
§ Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill)Will the hon. Lady give way?
§ Miss NicholsonNo.
Another much stronger point was suggested, perhaps also by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)—that there is an over-large, if I may make a judgment in using that word, financial burden on Members of Parliament whose constituency pressures are exceptionally large for a variety of reasons. They may find that they have 469 to disburse part of their salary to fulfil their obligations. In those circumstances there is a corollary with the business world. In what other line of work has any of us been involved where, if one generates more productive work, one is not given more resources with which to fulfil one's commitments to the job? That is a compelling argument.
Where Members of Parliament fall down is that, in assessing the job, we do not take on board the necessity of examining the different ways in which we perform. We happily gloss over that. We have a rate of pay for our work irrespective of the way in which we perform. It is not an impossible conundrum. I believe that there might be ways in which our over-long hours, the distances that we travel and particular responsibilities pertaining to the job could be taken into account. Some Members have been here longer than many others. Surely there should be some way of rewarding them for their years of service. There are many determinants and indicators which are well used in other sectors of pay review.
It ought to be possible for us to remove this interminable debate from the House of Commons. I strongly believe that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House should seriously consider the appointment of a permanent pay review body which would ensure that we never have to go through this misery again.
We are fortunate in having an honest House of Commons. Despite all our difficulties and pressures and despite the complexities, we are proud to have a House of Commons which is completely honourable and where there is no cheating of any sort. Could we not take the further step of giving away the responsibility for determining our own pay, as other Parliaments do? We should have an external body and cut out these debates once and for all.
§ Mr. Doug Hoyle (Warrington, North)I shall not follow the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). I find it strange that she believes that those in industry who award themselves large sums are accountable to shareholders. The suggestion was greeted with some hilarity on the Opposition Benches. I prefer to return to the practical side of the issue and to what the Leader of the House said.
When we discussed our pay last year, the Leader of the House promised us that he would try to ensure that the link with the civil service was not broken. I am pleased that he has returned this year to give us a notional link. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), I believe that we must wait to see how it turns out in practice.
When I spoke in the debate last year, I said that we would not get any plaudits for not taking the 3.9 per cent. increase which was awarded in August 1992 and should have been paid to us in January this year. Indeed, we received no recognition for instituting the pay freeze. The press has condemned us. The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Express, the Daily Mail and the Sunday Mirror brought out all the usual arguments about greedy Members of Parliament. None of them took into account the fact that we had had a pay freeze for the past 12 months. When we catch up, we shall be £2,000 out of pocket. If we cut our pay tonight, the press would say that we had obviously been overpaid. We would never win the argument.
470 We do not need lessons from editors who are on six-figure salaries. If they want to set an example, they should cut their own pay first and then talk to the rest of us about ours. In January next year, we will not even catch up to the 3.9 per cent. We will receive only 2.7 per cent. It will be two years before we catch up.
I found the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) rather unusual. He said that, if we all took a little less, we could find employment for more. If that were true, with the low wages that are paid in Calcutta, there would be no unemployment there. It is not true that taking a cut in wages generates employment for someone else. Of course no one is forced to take any increase that is awarded. It is up to each Member to make up his or her mind. If hon. Members take the increase, they can give it to a good cause or help other people.
If hon. Members take the increase, they can give it to a good cause or help other people.
There are two classes of hon. Members in this place. There are those who depend on their salaries and those who are not totally dependent on them. I am rather sorry that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), who also signed the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), is not in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West is not totally dependent on his House of Commons salary. He has consultancies, one of which involves accountancy. I wonder whether he will be giving those up. It is far easier to lecture the House when one is not totally dependent on the salary that one takes from this place.
§ Mr. CorbynIs my hon. Friend surprised by the absence of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern)?
§ Mr. HoyleI admit that we do not expect the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West to be here all the time. He is a busy man, ensuring that he is not totally dependent on the salary that he receives from this place.
If we accept the proposals, we will not have to return to this House year after year in respect of this matter. I congratulate the Leader of the House on making that possible. I hope that this is the last occasion in this Parliament that we have to debate the issue. I respect people who come along and say things to us. However, I will not be lectured by the barons of the press.
§ Sir Terence Higgins (Worthing)The House always approaches the question of Members' pay with considerable diffidence. None of us would dispute the fact that there is a real presentational problem. We should be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) for setting out the real position so clearly.
There is no doubt that, at the end of last week, the coverage in the media, on the radio and television, was very distorted. Numerous reports stated that we were about to award ourselves pay increases of more than thrice the level of inflation, or certainly more than the level of inflation. There were varying reports, but that was their general tenor. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has made it absolutely clear that that is not the case. It is very important to get that point across.
My right hon. Friend made it clear that, if we consider the period from the end of 1992 to 1995, the proposal will 471 mean that we have exercised greater restraint on our pay than is the case with regard to the civil service. In the broad context of pay restraint, that is very important.
While the speech of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was heartfelt, and the repercussions on pay policy generally may have some of the implications to which he referred, we can reasonably claim that we sought to set an example. In the light of our experience last year, it would be optimistic to suppose, as the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) suggested, that this will have much effect. However, we have tried in this case.
I want to detain the House for a moment to consider a longer-term perspective. There is an excellent research paper in the Library. I have been an hon. Member for almost 30 years and I noted with some interest that the level of pay set just after I became a Member, in real terms, was higher than the present proposals. We have still not reached the level of our pay in the early 1960s.
After a little more research, I discovered that average earnings over that period have increased nineteenfold in cost terms and by 90 per cent. in real terms. While our level has remained exactly the same, in a broad sense the standard of living of the population as a whole has increased by 90 per cent. To a considerable extent, that shows the way in which successive debates on hon. Members' pay have affected our relative position.
We have made two attempts to take the matter out of the political arena and have some impartial assessment of it. The first involved the Top Salaries Review Body, or whatever it is called now. Over the years, that body has made several recommendations. The graph in the Library shows what the position was. In 1975, a recommendation was made and rejected. In 1979, a recommendation was made and rejected or, more accurately, we got half of it one year, a quarter the following year and a further quarter the year after that. The review body made recommendations in 1983, and they were rejected. It would be optimistic to suppose that that forms an effective way to deal with the problem outside the political arena.
We have also tried to link our salaries with those of the civil service. The first attempt to do that was as long ago as 1975. A vote in the House, by a majority, agreed that we should be linked to the level of deputy secretary, but after the election it was not implemented. I am not sure what level of salary a deputy secretary is now paid, but it is something like £60,000. In 1983, we ended up with the rather bizarre idea of having 89 per cent. of the salary of someone at grade 6. The reason for that is lost in the mists of time, but I think that it was part of a compromise by Sir Edward du Cann. That may explain why.
In 1987, we said that we would have a permanent linkage with the civil service, and, having voted for that on three separate occasions, we thought that we would get that, until the 1992 autumn statement, when there was a freeze, and the permanent link was broken. As a result, we are in our present dilemma, and we shall again have to catch up over a period of some years, before we get back to where we should have been in January 1992. I fear that the link is not a satisfactory arrangement. As the hon. Member for Warrington, North suggested, it is worth considering to what extent the freeze we had last year had any effect.
472 My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House promised last year that he would ensure that there was not a permanent reduction in the level of Members' pay, with us being left further and further behind. The reality is that while he said that we would not be permanently disadvantaged, the time lag has, as he pointed out, meant that we are permanently disadvantaged, at any rate to the extent of £2,000. That has gone for ever. It is right that we should get back to the linkage.
What my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is proposing is in line with the Government's policy that we should encourage pay restraint. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has said, that is important. That being so, it is entirely reasonable, if the matter is looked at impartially and objectively, that we should support the Leader of the House, and those on the Opposition Front Bench, on what has been put before us this evening.
§ Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)The right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) has done us a service in setting the debate in a historical context, and reminding us of what the Leader of the House said—that the increase that we shall get if the motion is approved will be, on 1 January 1994, a 2.7 per cent. increase when inflation, unless there is a miracle in the next two months, will have gone up by 4.6 per cent. As we have been reminded, as a result of having our pay frozen over the past year, we shall have lost £2,000 by the time we eventually reach the promised parity. It is important to set the context properly.
I can say on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, as the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said on behalf of the Labour party, that there will be no party line, and each of my colleagues will make up his or her mind according to how he or she sees fit. I shall support the motion. We should acknowledge that the undertakings that the Leader of the House gave last year, when he moved the motion setting up the freeze, he has earnestly sought to honour. It is a great credit to him that he has fought for that, and succeeded. There is no question of dishonour for those who support the motion, who debated the freeze last year on the basis that we would return to parity, and who wish to carry that through and vote accordingly.
One of the most significant comments so far was made by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who said that 27 years ago he received the grade 6 civil service pay—of which, until very recently, we were going to award ourselves 89 per cent. That shows that many right hon. and hon. Members do not come here only for the money. I do not complain about that. We have made a choice; we know what we are letting ourselves in for. Equally, it is not unreasonable that we should have a fair rate for the job and that we should be reasonably remunerated.
Certainly we are not so well remunerated as many legislatures in the European Community or the United States. Indeed, some statistics which my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) had the Library compile before last year's debate showed that
adult males in April 1992 above the £590 paid to MPs were: general managers and administrators in national and local government … marketing and sales managers … medical practitioners … solicitors … ship and aircraft officers, air traffic planners … underwriters … brokers, and investment analysts".473 One could go on. We are not seeking the earth. It is not unreasonable to seek reasonable remuneration.We broke the link, no doubt for a good reason. Let us be fair: we did it as a gesture. Having broken that link, we have to go through the agony of again having to vote ourselves a pay rise. I hope that, by restoring a link, we can actually have the guts to stick to it. It is questionable what effect that gesture had, even if we were to vote for another pay freeze tonight. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) suggested that it would save £1 million. My calculation is that at 650 times—it is not actually 650, because the proposed increase for salaried Members is less than the proposed increase for ordinary Members—it would be only about £520,000, a good part of which would return to the Treasury in tax.
I do not believe for one moment that that will affect the economic direction of the country, no matter how difficult the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary have found things in the past few months. Therefore, we should support the motion and acknowledge that the Leader of the House has honoured his undertaking and that it is quite consistent, having voted for a freeze last year, to follow it through and support the motion.
§ Sir Jim Spicer (Dorset, West)I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the way in which he introduced this matter, in particular the way in which he reminded us of the pledge given to the House last year. It was on the basis of that pledge that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members accepted the need for the freeze and voted for it. I also thank the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the deputy Leader of the Opposition, for the remarkable way in which, in a few minutes, she encapsulated the views of many right hon. and hon. Members.
I have the honour to serve under the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) as one of the trustees of the pension group. When the freeze was initiated, I spoke about pensions and the effect of that freeze on pensioners. Nobody should forget that that will not go away; it will remain with us for some time to come. Even when we catch up, we will still be that much behind. The effect on pensions will be not for one or two years but for 20 or 25 years for some widows or widowers.
We know that, whatever we do or say tonight, we will never get it right in the eyes of the general public. I have already received lovely letters saying, "I don't think that you should increase your pay; you shouldn't freeze it; you shouldn't have any bloody pay at all because you are all absolutely useless." We will receive those letters—
§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)I have not received one.
§ Sir Jim SpicerMy hon. Friend need not worry; he will.
I appeal to some hon. Members who might be inclined to say, "Okay, I am going to abstain. I know that the measure will go through tomorrow and I will be able to bravely say to my constituents or on the radio, 'I did not vote for this increase'." If they follow that course, in all honesty they should write to the Fees Office refusing the increase.
Alternatively, those who feel impelled to vote against what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has 474 proposed tonight could make a contribution to charity through the give-as-you-earn scheme. I did a little investigation this morning, and I was shocked to find that only about 55 Members currently do so. I hope that most hon. Members will follow the lead that has been given by the Leader of the House and the deputy Leader of the Opposition, vote in favour of this and accept the inevitable result of the public saying, "There they go again."
I am thinking not of my time in the House, but of what will happen in the years ahead. I want to get away from those awful first 16 years that I spent in the House when, year after year, we went through this awful ritual, and, whatever we did, we never found favour in the eyes of the general public.
§ Ms Rachel Squire (Dunfermline, West)What the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) said about pensions could be even more of a reason why this debate should be about public service pay generally, not just the pay of Members of Parliament.
I have three points to make about the pay of Members of Parliament and public service workers. First, we are public servants. We are here to serve our constituents and to argue for the policies that we believe will be of benefit to them. There are 5 million other public service workers and they feel considerably aggrieved by the Government's treatment of them. They were given an undertaking last year that the 1.5 per cent. pay limit would not be repeated, yet it is being repeated.
I agree with many of the comments made by hon. Members about the embarrassment of debating our pay, particularly given some of the antics that take place in this Chamber, a good example of which occurred tonight. It is hardly any wonder that members of the public sometimes call into question their general opinion of politicians.
I accept what has been said about the media's responsibility for part of the impression of politicians, and I make it clear that many of us do not accept fat consultancy fees, but spend our entire office allowance on employing people and providing a service to our constituents. However, as we are well aware, the long hours and commitments of many hon. Members are often not reported.
My next point relates to the low pay of many public service workers, despite their hard work and commitment. More than half a million of them earn less than £174 per week. The 1.5 per cent. pay increase for, say, a nursing auxiliary, will amount to an increase of only about £2 a week before tax, and many of us have spent more than that tonight simply on one meal.
The increase in national insurance contributions, higher prices in general and VAT on fuel mean that many public service workers have had a pay cut.
My final point relates to talk about performance-related pay. The Government are saying that, for other public service workers, but not for us, there will be no pay increase in 1994–95 unless there is performance-related pay. I shall finish by suggesting that, if any people should base their salaries on performance-related pay, it should be Ministers. I predict that, if the salary of Ministers were related to the public view of their performance on economic policy, they would soon be arguing for a minimum wage to be introduced.
§ Mr. Quentin Davies (Stamford and Spalding)Clearly, one can make a case for continuing our pay freeze in a fashion which seems, at least at first sight, morally very attractive. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) did that with his usual ability and lucidity. One can make a case for continuing a pay freeze in a more demagogic or populist fashion, and the media seem to be good at doing that.
I shall vote for the motions with no hesitation or embarrassment at all. If we do not support the restoration of the link with civil service pay, we shall be doing something that is profoundly irresponsible, and for a simple reason. If we continue with a pay freeze, only one of two things logically can happen. Either each year we will continue to face a real decline in the value of our pay. That means that, if inflation continues at any rate, ultimately, logically and with mathematical certainty, eventually the real level of our pay will be virtually worthless. If that happens, we will have returned to the practice of the 18th and 19th centuries when people could come to this House only if they had substantial private means or, much more sinisterly, if they had a powerful patron or interest group prepared to pay to send them here. I do not think that any hon. Members seriously want that.
Otherwise, if we do not restore the link with civil service pay, the only logical alternative is that the gap between civil service pay and our own will steadily expand and we will simply have postponed dealing with a difficult problem, making it much more difficult to deal with it subsequently when we must do so. Surely that cannot be good politics, and it cannot be a responsible decision of the House.
§ Mr. DaviesI hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me—I have very little time and I want to be uncharacteristically brief.
There is no doubt whatever that the gesture we made at the beginning of 1992 to accept a pay freeze went completely unappreciated. Certainly I never heard a single word from anyone in my constituency or elsewhere saying that he thought that it was a good idea or a noble thing to do, and certainly no one suggested that it would affect his or her pay bargaining or wage setting behaviour. Indeed, I do not believe that anyone took seriously that suggestion at that time, or at any other time.
We should not be misled into empty gestures. And certainly, we should not be influenced by demagogy, populism, or what is written in the media. It would be a form of moral corruption to allow our judgment in this or any other matter to be subject to intimidation by the press or anyone else outside the House. We should do what we believe is right in all the circumstances, and I believe that that means that we should support the Leader of the House this evening.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)I am sorry that the two amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends have not been selected for a Division.
In reality, there are two classes of Members in this House. There are those who depend entirely on their parliamentary salary for their livelihood and those who, when elected, obtain parliamentary adviserships and 476 company directorships—[Interruption.]—are paid by lobby organisations and, sometimes, by the media. [Interruption.] Some of them are squealing now, because I am raising this in Parliament and they do not like it.
Many Members receive much more than their parliamentary salary from outside interests. Some Members directly prejudice their own position in the House because of their allegiance to their paymasters. It is entirely wrong to have two classes of Members and only one level of payment. My amendment would allow—
§ Mr. Quentin DaviesWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. CryerI do not have much time. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken, and I have only a few minutes left.
My amendment would allow Members who depend on this place for a livelihood to receive the increase, but not those who receive more than £2,000 a year from outside interests. That would allow some flexibility for the odd television appearance and the odd article. It could not be argued, for example, that a £10 payment for a television interview would prevent a Member from having the increase. It would allow Members who operate in a reasonable framework and Members who are determined to work full time in Parliament to do so. It would exclude from this place the corruption caused by outside interests.
§ Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley)Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. CryerI am not giving way. The hon. Gentleman is wasting his time standing up.
Sometimes it is argued that it is necessary to have Members with outside interests to bring experience to this House. Those who argue in that way are always those with a highly paid directorship, on £10,000 a year from parliamentary lobbyists and so on. They never spend time down some of the few remaining coal mines or in poorly paid manual occupations. Those with between two and eight outside jobs here simply exhibit the symptoms of greed.
Members who resent any criticism about our judgment and our salaries should bear in mind the fact that the Government set the level of payment for the poorest people. They set the levels for child support and income support. Members are in receipt of salaries that are greater than those of most constituents. The Government set the level of income at low rates because, when they get into an economic mess, they always hit the poor to get themselves out of it. It is not surprising, then, that, when salaries are discussed, they invite some criticism.
My second amendment relates to public sector workers.
§ Mrs. FyfeDoes my hon. Friend agree that, since the House wishes, rightly, to assert the rate for our job tonight, it should at an early stage consider the rate for the job of elected members of local councils, who are disgracefully underpaid and have been for many years?
§ Mr. CryerThat could reasonably be taken into account. My hon. Friend is right: there are double standards. The standards imposed by this Government and this House on local councillors for revealing their financial interests—it is a criminal penalty for any councillor to vote 477 on anything in which they have a financial interest—are not imposed in this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) was right to draw attention to that.
My second amendment, which I regret has not been selected, relates to other public sector workers, on whom the Government have imposed a 1.5 per cent. limit on pay increases. My amendment simply says that any increase given to Members of Parliament should automatically apply to other public sector workers. Why should not the police, nurses, firemen and other public sector workers receive the same percentage increase that we are to get? That would make sense and would only be fair. It would show that we value nurses, for example, as highly as Members of Parliament.
As my amendments have not been selected, I shall not support the motion. I shall support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), which I hope he will move to demonstrate that all is not well in this Parliament. Until the question of outside jobs is sorted out and Members of Parliament become full-time, because they are paid enough to be full-time, a big question mark will remain over pay in this House.
§ Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)For an ex-Euro Member of Parliament to make such a speech brings unctuousness to a new achievement—[Interruption] That is an unparliamentary expression, so I cannot pick it up. On the basis of what we have heard from the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) tonight, he was overpaid then and he is overpaid now.
I shall certainly support my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. He made a powerful case in support of the motion before the House, and I understand any Member taking that view as well. The idea that we are somehow awarding ourselves more than the public sector is false, and my right hon. Friend set out dramatically the reasoning for that.
I was also highly impressed by the speech made by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). She set a theme for the debate which, with one possible exception, has been followed through: that it is unseemly—to be fair, it has not happened tonight—to have one Member lecturing another on what pay rise he is entitled to take. By any reasonable approach, the proposal is reasonable. But the hon. Lady was fair enough to say that different demands fall on different Members because of their different circumstances.
With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), we should not say that we should be paid because of the various responsibilities that we have taken on. That is not the point. For the current year, I shall ask the Fees Office to give me a 1.5 per cent. rise. The fact that I can do that must be influenced by the fact that I have private means. I should like to think that, if I did not, I would still reach that decision. I probably would but, in all conscience, I cannot put out of my mind the fact that I can afford to do it. I suppose that those of us with wealthy spouses also try to put it out of their minds and are not influenced by that. But they might be.
My position is somewhat ironic. Perhaps we made a mistake last year in freezing our pay. As the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) fairly said, our doing so got no plaudits out there in the marketplace. Ironically, had 478 we taken a 1.5 per cent. rise last year and a 1.5 per cent. rise this year, we would have done slightly better, and it would also have been justified.
Although it may not have done much good out there, in a sense I found it useful. When people came to my surgery banging my desk—sometimes literally—saying, "I am doing a very worthwhile job in the public sector, so I should be paid more," I could say, "I know. You are doing a thoroughly worthwhile job, but I can't take that into account. I take into account what the nation thinks it can afford for your duties." That underpins the motion which my right hon. Friend has brought to the House tonight.
No member of Parliament does not know, in his heart of hearts, that the overwhelming majority of us on both sides of the House put our backs into this job and, compared with the salary that we could command in the marketplace, we are paid considerably less. But a judgment must be made about what we can afford.
I am sure that this motion is right, and I well understand the action of any hon. Member who votes in favour of it. Moreover, I see nothing inconsistent in saying that we must all be answerable for ourselves: many different influences are brought to bear on us. I personally have decided to accept an increase of 1.5 per cent., for the current year at least; but that is an entirely personal judgment, which I do not urge on anyone else.
§ Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock and Burntwood)Tonight's speeches—with the exception of one or two by Opposition Members—have been self-congratulatory. I want, just for a moment, to strike a rather more discordant note.
I take my cue from the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who said that for 14 years Parliament has not asserted itself against the Executive. I found myself agreeing with him. On only eight occasions since 1979 have the Government been defeated on the Floor of the House; it was seven before the recent Maastricht hiccup. On no fewer than three of those occasions, the issue has been Members' pay and allowances.
I ask the House to reflect on what the public will make of that. What conclusion will they reach about the ability of this Parliament to be a Parliament—to hold the Executive to account, and to take the action that our constituents expect us to take when they write to us? We should think seriously about the fact that we do not do those things, and about the fact that we can engineer this consensus tonight. When we are discussing other matters, we march through the Lobbies in the way decreed by the Whips and the executive.
That is one of my two reservations about the motion. The other is this. When I first became a Member of Parliament, I was told that I should buy a Ford Sierra with diesel. When I asked why, I was told, "It is the Member of Parliament's car. You get an allowance of 68.2p a mile if you drive a motor car with an engine capacity of more than 2300 cc." That is outrageous: it rewards vice, not virtue. [Interruption.] It rewards environmental vice. It encourages exactly the kind of behaviour that we should be discouraging.
When I first became a Member of Parliament, I went to a meeting at which there was a great movement to reform allowances. Someone made a proposal that prompted someone else to say, "Ah, but if we do that they will want 479 to do a proper audit on us." No proper audit is done on us: no proper audit is carried out on what Members of Parliament do, or on how they spend their allowances.
My first conclusion is that there ought to be such an audit; my second—this is another attempt to agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Kent—is that, if we want to carry our constituents and the country with us on issues such as this, we must become a different kind of Parliament from the Parliament that we are now. At present, we are an unreformed Parliament. There is a whole reform agenda out there, and, if we are serious about holding Governments to account and representing our constituents, we need to act on it.
§ It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [29 October], That the amendment by made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 38, Noes 279.
481| Division No. 400] | [12.54 am |
| AYES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) |
| Allason, Rupert (Torbay) | Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley |
| Alton, David | Paisley, Rev Ian |
| Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy | Pickthall, Colin |
| Banks, Matthew (Southport) | Pope, Greg |
| Beith, Rt Hon A. J. | Porter, David (Waveney) |
| Bottomley, Peter (Eltham) | Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) |
| Chisholm, Malcolm | Robinson, Peter (Belfast E) |
| Cryer, Bob | Rooker, Jeff |
| Dowd, Jim | Skinner, Dennis |
| Elletson, Harold | Spring, Richard |
| Field, Frank (Birkenhead) | Stevenson, George |
| Gallie, Phil | Trotter, Neville |
| Gill, Christopher | Walden, George |
| Gordon, Mildred | Walley, Joan |
| Harvey, Nick | Ward, John |
| Hawkins, Nick | Wareing, Robert N |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | |
| Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Kilfedder, Sir James | Mr. Harry Barnes and |
| McCrea, Rev William | Ms Liz Lynne. |
| NOES | |
| Adams, Mrs Irene | Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E) |
| Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) | Browning, Mrs. Angela |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby) | Burns, Simon |
| Allen, Graham | Burt, Alistair |
| Amess, David | Callaghan, Jim |
| Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale) | Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) |
| Arbuthnot, James | Campbell-Savours, D. N. |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry) |
| Ashton, Joe | Carrington, Matthew |
| Atkins, Robert | Chapman, Sydney |
| Austin-Walker, John | Clark, Dr David (South Shields) |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North) | Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) |
| Baldry, Tony | Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif) |
| Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret | Clelland, David |
| Bell, Stuart | Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey |
| Bellingham, Henry | Clwyd, Mrs Ann |
| Bennett, Andrew F. | Coffey, Ann |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Conway, Derek |
| Betts, Clive | Coombs, Simon (Swindon) |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Cope, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Booth, Hartley | Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE) |
| Boswell, Tim | Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia | Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon) |
| Bowis, John | Darling, Alistair |
| Brandreth, Gyles | Davies, Quentin (Stamford) |
| Bright, Graham | Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) |
| Brooke, Rt Hon Peter | Davis, David (Boothferry) |
| Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes) | Deva, Nirj Joseph |
| Devlin, Tim | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald |
| Dixon, Don | Key, Robert |
| Donohoe, Brian H. | Kilfoyle, Peter |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Kirkhope, Timothy |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash) |
| Dover, Den | Knight, Greg (Derby N) |
| Duncan, Alan | Kynoch, George (Kincardine) |
| Dunnachie, Jimmy | Lang, Rt Hon Ian |
| Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth | Leigh, Edward |
| Durant, Sir Anthony | Lennox-Boyd, Mark |
| Eagle, Ms Angela | Lewis, Terry |
| Eastham, Ken | Lightbown, David |
| Enright, Derek | Lilley, Rt Hon Peter |
| Etherington, Bill | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) |
| Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield) | Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) |
| Evans, John (St Helens N) | Luff, Peter |
| Evans, Jonathan (Brecon) | Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas |
| Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley) | McAllion, John |
| Evennett, David | McAvoy, Thomas |
| Fabricant, Michael | MacGregor, Rt Hon John |
| Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas | MacKay, Andrew |
| Faulds, Andrew | Maclean, David |
| Flynn, Paul | McLeish, Henry |
| Forman, Nigel | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | McMaster, Gordon |
| Forth, Eric | McNamara, Kevin |
| Foster, Rt Hon Derek | McWilliam, John |
| Foster, Don (Bath) | Madden, Max |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman | Maddock, Mrs Diana |
| Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring) | Madel, David |
| Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley) | Maitland, Lady Olga |
| Freeman, Rt Hon Roger | Major, Rt Hon John |
| Fyfe, Maria | Malone, Gerald |
| Gale, Roger | Mandelson, Peter |
| Galloway, George | Mans, Keith |
| Gapes, Mike | Marek, Dr John |
| Garrett, John | Marlow, Tony |
| Gerrard, Neil | Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S) |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | Marshall, John (Hendon S) |
| Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles | Martin, David (Portsmouth S) |
| Graham, Thomas | Martin, Michael J. (Springbum) |
| Greenway, John (Ryedale) | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | Maxton, John |
| Grocott, Bruce | Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick |
| Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn | Meale, Alan |
| Gunnell, John | Merchant, Piers |
| Hague, William | Michael, Alun |
| Hain, Peter | Milligan, Stephen |
| Hall, Mike | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Morgan, Rhodri |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe) |
| Hannam, Sir John | Moss, Malcolm |
| Harris, David | Mudie, George |
| Hayes, Jerry | Murphy, Paul |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Needham, Richard |
| Heppell, John | Nelson, Anthony |
| Hicks, Robert | Neubert, Sir Michael |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L. | Newton, Rt Hon Tony |
| Hill, Keith (Streatham) | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham) | Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) |
| Home Robertson, John | Norris, Steve |
| Hood, Jimmy | O'Neill, Martin |
| Hoon, Geoffrey | Oppenheim, Phillip |
| Howard, Rt Hon Michael | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Howarth, George (Knowsley N) | Ottaway, Richard |
| Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd) | Paice, James |
| Hoyle, Doug | Patchett, Terry |
| Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) | Pendry, Tom |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Pickles, Eric |
| Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W) | Pike, Peter L. |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport E) | Portillo, Rt Hon Michael |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W) | Prescott, John |
| Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas | Randall, Stuart |
| Illsley, Eric | Redwood, Rt Hon John |
| Jack, Michael | Rendel, David |
| Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey | Richards, Rod |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Riddick, Graham |
| Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) | Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm |
| Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O) | Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn |
| Robertson, George (Hamilton) | Taylor, John M. (Solihull) |
| Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S) | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Robinson, Mark (Somerton) | Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V) |
| Roche, Mrs. Barbara | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) | Thurnham, Peter |
| Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent) | Tracey, Richard |
| Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela | Tredinnick, David |
| Ryder, Rt Hon Richard | Trend, Michael |
| Sackville, Tom | Tumer, Dennis |
| Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas | Tyler, Paul |
| Shaw, David (Dover) | Vaughan, Sir Gerard |
| Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian | Waldegrave, Rt Hon William |
| Short, Clare | Wallace, James |
| Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Soames, Nicholas | Watson, Mike |
| Spellar, John | Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Spencer, Sir Derek | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset) | Willetts, David |
| Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) | Wilshire, David |
| Spink, Dr Robert | Wilson, Brian |
| Sproat, Iain | Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld) |
| Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W) | Wise, Audrey |
| Squire, Robin (Hornchurch) | Wolfson, Mark |
| Steen, Anthony | Wray, Jimmy |
| Stewart, Allan | Yeo, Tim |
| Stott, Roger | Young, Rt Hon Sir George |
| Strang, Dr. Gavin | |
| Straw, Jack | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Streeter, Gary | Mr. Irvine Patnick and |
| Sweeney, Walter | Mr. Timothy Wood. |
| Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
§ Question accordingly negatived.
§ Main Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 42.
483| Division No. 401] | [1.07 am |
| AYES | |
| Adams, Mrs Irene | Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) |
| Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) | Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif) |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Clwyd, Mrs Ann |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby) | Coffey, Ann |
| Allen, Graham | Coombs, Simon (Swindon) |
| Amess, David | Cope, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale) | Cox, Tom |
| Arbuthnot, James | Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE) |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John |
| Atkins, Robert | Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon) |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North) | Darling, Alistair |
| Baldry, Tony | Davies, Quentin (Stamford) |
| Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret | Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) |
| Bell, Stuart | Davis, David (Boothferry) |
| Bellingham, Henry | Devlin, Tim |
| Bennett, Andrew F. | Dixon, Don |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Donohoe, Brian H. |
| Betts, Clive | Dorrell, Stephen |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James |
| Booth, Hartley | Dover, Den |
| Boswell, Tim | Duncan, Alan |
| Bottomley, Peter (Eltham) | Dunnachie, Jimmy |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia | Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth |
| Bowis, John | Durant, Sir Anthony |
| Brandreth, Gyles | Eagle, Ms Angela |
| Bright, Graham | Eastham, Ken |
| Brooke, Rt Hon Peter | Enright, Derek |
| Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes) | Etherington, Bill |
| Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E) | Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield) |
| Browning, Mrs. Angela | Evans, Jonathan (Brecon) |
| Bruce, Ian (S Dorset) | Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley) |
| Burns, Simon | Evennett, David |
| Burt, Alistair | Fabricant, Michael |
| Callaghan, Jim | Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Flynn, Paul |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry) | Forman, Nigel |
| Carrington, Matthew | Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) |
| Chapman, Sydney | Forth, Eric |
| Clark, Dr David (South Shields) | Foster, Rt Hon Derek |
| Foster, Don (Bath) | Madden, Max |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman | Maddock, Mrs Diana |
| Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring) | Madel, David |
| Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley) | Maitland, Lady Olga |
| Freeman, Rt Hon Roger | Major, Rt Hon John |
| Gale, Roger | Malone, Gerald |
| Galloway, George | Mandelson, Peter |
| Gapes, Mike | Mans, Keith |
| Garrett, John | Marek, Dr John |
| Gerrard, Neil | Marlow, Tony |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S) |
| Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles | Marshall, John (Hendon S) |
| Graham, Thomas | Martin, David (Portsmouth S) |
| Greenway, John (Ryedale) | Martin, Michael J. (Springburn) |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | Mawhinney, Dr Brian |
| Grocott, Bruce | Maxton, John |
| Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn | Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick |
| Gunnell, John | Meale, Alan |
| Hague, William | Merchant, Piers |
| Hain, Peter | Michael, Alun |
| Hall, Mike | Milligan, Stephen |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe) |
| Hannam, Sir John | Moss, Malcolm |
| Harris, David | Mudie, George |
| Hayes, Jerry | Murphy, Paul |
| Heathcoat-Amory, David | Needham, Richard |
| Henderson, Doug | Nelson, Anthony |
| Heppell, John | Neubert, Sir Michael |
| Hicks, Robert | Newton, Rt Hon Tony |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L. | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Hill, Keith (Streatham) | Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) |
| Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham) | Norris, Steve |
| Home Robertson, John | O'Neill, Martin |
| Hood, Jimmy | Oppenheim, Phillip |
| Hoon, Geoffrey | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Howard, Rt Hon Michael | Ottaway, Richard |
| Howarth, George (Knowsley N) | Paice, James |
| Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd) | Patchett, Terry |
| Hoyle, Doug | Pendry, Tom |
| Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) | Pickles, Eric |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Pike, Peter L. |
| Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W) | Portillo, Rt Hon Michael |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport E) | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Prescott, John |
| Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W) | Purchase, Ken |
| Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas | Randall, Stuart |
| Illsley, Eric | Redwood, Rt Hon John |
| Jack, Michael | Rendel, David |
| Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey | Richards, Rod |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Riddick, Graham |
| Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) | Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm |
| Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O) | Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn |
| Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald | Robertson, George (Hamilton) |
| Key, Robert | Robinson, Mark (Somerton) |
| Kilfoyle, Peter | Roche, Mrs. Barbara |
| Kirkhope, Timothy | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
| Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash) | Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent) |
| Knight, Greg (Derby N) | Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela |
| Kynoch, George (Kincardine) | Ryder, Rt Hon Richard |
| Lang, Rt Hon Ian | Sackville, Tom |
| Leigh, Edward | Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim |
| Lennox-Boyd, Mark | Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas |
| Lewis, Terry | Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian |
| Lightbown, David | Short, Clare |
| Lilley, Rt Hon Peter | Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) |
| Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) | Soames, Nicholas |
| Luff, Peter | Spellar, John |
| Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas | Spencer, Sir Derek |
| McAllion, John | Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset) |
| McAvoy, Thomas | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| MacGregor, Rt Hon John | Sproat, Iain |
| MacKay, Andrew | Squire, Robin (Hornchurch) |
| Maclean, David | Steen, Anthony |
| McLeish, Henry | Stewart, Allan |
| McLoughlin, Patrick | Stott, Roger |
| McMaster, Gordon | Strang, Dr. Gavin |
| McNamara, Kevin | Straw, Jack |
| McWilliam, John | Streeter, Gary |
| Sweeney, Walter | Watson, Mike |
| Taylor, Ian (Esher) | Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Taylor, John M. (Solihull) | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Taylor, Matthew (Truro) | Willetts, David |
| Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V) | Wilshire, David |
| Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) | Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld) |
| Thurnham, Peter | Wise, Audrey |
| Tracey, Richard | Wolfson, Mark |
| Tredinnick, David | Wood, Timothy |
| Trend, Michael | Worthington, Tony |
| Twinn, Dr Ian | Wray, Jimmy |
| Tyler, Paul | Yeo, Tim |
| Vaughan, Sir Gerard | Young, Rt Hon Sir George |
| Waldegrave, Rt Hon William | |
| Wallace, James | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Wardell, Gareth (Gower) | Mr. Irvine Patnick and |
| Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) | Mr. Derek Conway. |
| NOES | |
| Alexander, Richard | Khabra, Piara S. |
| Allason, Rupert (Torbay) | Kilfedder, Sir James |
| Alton, David | Lidington, David |
| Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy | Lynne, Ms Liz |
| Aspinwall, Jack | McCrea, Rev William |
| Austin-Walker, John | Marland, Paul |
| Banks, Matthew (Southport) | Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) |
| Bates, Michael | Montgomery, Sir Fergus |
| Beith, Rt Hon A. J. | Paisley, Rev Ian |
| Benton, Joe | Pickthall, Colin |
| Chisholm, Malcolm | Pope, Greg |
| Clelland, David | Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Robinson, Peter (Belfast E) |
| Deva, Nirj Joseph | Skinner, Dennis |
| Dowd, Jim | Spink, Dr Robert |
| Elletson, Harold | Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W) |
| Field, Frank (Birkenhead) | Stephen, Michael |
| Gallie, Phil | Sykes, John |
| Gill, Christopher | Wareing, Robert N |
| Gordon, Mildred | |
| Harvey, Nick | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Hawkins, Nick | Mr. Harry Barnes and |
| Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) | Mr. Bob Cryer. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
§ Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [29th October],
484§ That the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House—
- (1) In respect of service in 1994—
- (a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate of £31,687; and
- (b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate of £23,854.
- (2) In respect of service in 1995—
- (a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the sum of £32,538 but increased by the relevant percentage for that year; and
- (b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the sum of £24,495 but increased by the relevant percentage for that year.
- (3) In respect of service in any subsequent year—
- (a) the salary of an ordinary Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the salary of an ordinary Member for the preceding year but increased by the relevant percentage for that subsequent year; and
- (b) the salary of a salaried Member shall be at a yearly rate equal to the salary of a salaried Member for the preceding year but increased by the relevant percentage for that subsequent year.
- (4) For the purposes of this Resolution—
- (a) an ordinary Member is a Member of this House other than a salaried Member;
- (b) a salaried Member is an Officer of this House or any Member of this House 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; and
- (c) the relevant percentage for any year ("the relevant year") is the percentage by which, as a result of any pay settlement in the preceding year and any stage taking effect in that year of an earlier pay settlement, the average annual salary (disregarding allowances) on 1st January in the relevant year of the persons covered by the 1992 Pay Agreement for Grades 5 to 7 has increased compared with that average on 1st January in the preceding year.—[Mr. Newton.]
§ Question agreed to.
§
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [29th October],
That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 1st November, be approved. —[Mr. Newton.]
Question agreed to.