§ "The Government has decided to invite Lord Boyle's Top Salaries Review Body to undertake a full review of Members' salaries and allowances.
§ "The Review Body will also be invited this time to make recommendations on Peers' expenses allowances. The last full review, as Members will know, was undertaken by the Top Salaries Review Body in 1971 and resulted in increases in Members' remuneration from 1st January 1972.
§ "In its report the Review Body suggested that Parliamentary remuneration should be subject to major reviews every four years, that is, roughly corresponding to once in the lifetime of each Parliament, but they suggested that interim adjustments should be considered between major reviews.
§ "Apart from the updating of some of the rates of allowances in August this year, there have been no other interim adjustments and the Parliamentary salary has remained unchanged now for practically three years. As a result, Members' salaries have fallen very seriously behind the rise in the cost of living. In fact, by October the Retail Prices Index had risen by 36½ per cent. since January 1972 while Members' salary has remained static at £4,500. The Government is conscious of the serious financial strain under which many Members are now labouring and also acknowledges the restraint they have exercised during the last year or so.
§ "The terms of reference of the review will be so drawn as to provide full score to the 1333 Review Body to cover all aspects of Parliamentary remuneration, allowances and pensions. We shall ask the Review Body particularly to consider the mechanism whereby Members' remuneration can be regularly reviewed in future so that they do not suffer greater hardship from inflation than the rest of the community. In this connection many Members feel that their salary should be linked to a particular civil service salary and the Review Body will be reminded of this option.
§ "The matter of Peers' expenses allowance is also being referred to the Review Body because the present system of a single rate of allowance is considered unsatisfactory in that it does not meet the varying circumstances of Peers attending Parliament. Some attend from distant parts of the country, while for others the House is comparatively nearby. It is hoped that the Review Body will commence their work early in January, but as this is to be a thoroughgoing review, Members cannot expect the full report to be available for some time. I am sure, however, that Lord Boyle and his colleagues will, as they have always done in the past, set about their task speedily and with the utmost care and due consideration to all the factors.
§ "Hon. Members will recall that in my statement on 29th July I announced the Government's proposals for assistance to back-benchers, for opposition parties and for political parties outside Westminster. First of all I said that I proposed to set up a Select Committee to examine the present support facilities available to backbenchers. I have today put down on the Order Paper a Motion proposing the establishment of this Committee. Its terms of reference will be: 'To examine the present support facilities available to backbench Members in carrying out their duties in this House, in particular research assistance on matters before Parliament, and to make recommendation for such improvements as they consider necessary '. This Select Committee will have a most important task before it on behalf of backbenchers.
§ "Next I referred to the Government's belief in the need to strengthen our Parliamentary democracy, and said that we proposed that an independent committee should examine the question of whether or not public funds should be made available to political parties for their work outside Parliament. I have had consultations with all the parties in the House, and the Committee will be set up shortly after Christmas. The terms of reference will be' To consider whether, in the interests of Parliamentary democracy, provision should be made from public funds to assist political parties in carrying out their functions outside Parliament: to examine the practice of other Parliamentary democracies in this field, and to make recommendations as to the scope of political activities to which any such provision should relate and the method of its allocation'.
§ "Also in my statement in July I told the House that I would bring forward in the autumn firm proposals for the provision of financial assistance to Opposition parties in 1334 the House. Any formula must take into account both seats in the House and votes at the last election—votes because there is a correlation between votes won and the volume of correspondence to be dealt with in the offices of Opposition Parties. In the case of the main Opposition, I have applied an upper limit, based on the costing of an adequate Parliamentary Office, including research facilities for the Leader of the Opposition. The scheme would be confined to parties having either:
- i. two Members elected to the House at the previous General Election; or
- ii. one Member elected and a minimum of 150,000 votes cast for it at the previous General Election.
§ The formula of £500 per seat and £1 for every 200 votes achieves the following results:
| £ | |
| Conservatives | 150,000 (maximum) |
| Liberals | 33,250 |
| Scottish National Party | 9,700 |
| United Ulster Unionists | 7,050 |
| Plaid Cymru | 2,300 |
| SDLP | 1,270 |
§ "The allocation of funds between the two Houses is a matter for the parties themselves to decide, but I would consider it appropriate for a percentage of those funds to be allocated for the Opposition's work in the Lords.
§ "These are maximum amounts and the parties will be accountable for expenditure within these limits to the House authorities.
§ "I believe that these proposals will strengthen the effectiveness and independence of Members of Parliament, of Parliament itself and of the political parties and in so doing will greatly strengthen democracy in this country."