House of Commons Hansard Debates for 25 Nov 1992

Ms. Mowlam : As the Minister has in some senses shown this afternoon, the reality behind the charter is that he has lowered the aspirations and has not secured the achievements. He has also misled the House : he said that 90 per cent. of the original charter aims had been met, yet he has no basis for that statement. He has not polled the consumers ; nor has he written to all the local authorities, health authorities or police authorities so as to have any measure of the Government's success. We can answer the question whether Labour local authorities have delivered, because we have written to every body mentioned in the charter. We have a fund of information on what has and has not been achieved. The Minister has not even bothered to talk to many of the organisations.

Mr. Waldegrave : Many local authorities have sent me copies of the letter which the hon. Lady sent to them.

The whole basis of the operation is consultation with users and services. That is the principle on which we are working.

On the subject of our pledges, the original White Paper contains a range of things which we said we would do--and those are what we have done. I by no means say that every standard has been met. If that were so, it would prove only that the standards were too easy. In many respects, as with British Rail, there must now be a drive to correct the situation in areas where our work has shown that the standards are not being properly met.

Column 881

Fuel Cost Credits

4.11 pm

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax) : I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow fuel cost credits to be paid from the National Insurance Fund in order to assist those who are on low incomes, or who are otherwise vulnerable, with fuel costs ; and for connected purposes.

My Bill would mean that all householders on benefit would receive a weekly fuel credit towards heating costs from 1 December to 31 March. The value of the credit would be graded into four zones according to climatic conditions. The Bill is identical to the Cold Weather Credits Bill introduced last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). I agree with him and with the Campaign for Cold Weather Credits that such a system, linked to the urgently needed expansion of the home energy efficiency scheme, would begin to tackle fuel poverty. It would be a massive improvement on the present miserable scheme which can help only 200,000 people, not the millions who need help.

Later today, there will be much talk about pay freezes. Many Tory Members who earn three times their salaries by moonlighting will pontificate at length on the need to freeze the pay of low-paid employees. However, the freeze that I am talking about is of far more concern to my constituents-- it is the cold this winter which many people, mainly the elderly, dread.

As I seek leave to bring in my Bill, it is warm and comfortable in the Chamber. When hon. Members leave the House tonight, they will go home to warm, comfortable flats and houses. That is not the case for the 7 million households in Britain where people live in fuel poverty, unable to keep themselves at the minimum standard for healthy living recommended by the World Health Organisation. The £50 million which the Government found so easily at the beginning of this week for the restoration of Windsor castle would have insulated about 250,000 of those households.

I ask hon. Members to consider how many death certificates in England and Wales mention hypothermia as a main or contributory cause of death. In 1991, there were 534--almost a 50 per cent. increase on the previous year. That is a shameful statistic. However, shocking as it is, it does not tell the full story. We should be asking how many people died for cold-related reasons, because often that does not appear on death certificates. However, it is clear from Government statistics that, between April 1990 and 31 March 1991, almost 500,000 people aged over 60 died. Of those, 230,000 died in the summer months from April to September and 270,000 died in the winter months from October to March. It is clear that there is a much higher death rate among that age group in the winter.

The Department of Social Security has created what it calls an "excess winter deaths" measure. In a comparative survey of winter deaths in 10 countries with similar cold climates, it was established that the number of deaths in January is generally 10 per cent. higher than average. In Scotland, it is 16 per cent. higher and in England and Wales it is a staggering 19 per cent. higher. By comparison, in Germany the increase in the number of deaths in January is only 4 per cent. In Sweden and Norway, countries that are known for their cold climates, the number of deaths in January is only 7 per cent. above average.

Column 882

From the Government's evidence, I conclude that elderly people in Britain are at greater risk of dying in winter than elderly people living in other EC countries. I wonder how the Prime Minister will explain that to Ministers when they meet in Edinburgh in December. People who long for a white Christmas should reflect on the fact that, with Britain's current fuel poverty, for every degree celsius a winter is colder than average, there are another 8,000 "excess" deaths of old people.

Cold not only kills ; it also causes disease and illness. The national health service spent £800 million on treatment for avoidable conditions--bronchitis, respiratory diseases, pneumonia and illnesses associated with, and created by, people living in cold damp conditions.

The causes of those avoidable deaths and diseases are simple : low incomes and poor quality housing. It is a disgrace that, on the day when I have the opportunity to introduce my Bill, the Minister for Housing and Planning has refused to visit a group of people living in system-built houses, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and I visited and who are suffering particularly from inadequate housing, which causes so many problems.

There is a huge problem, but what do the Government do about it ? They offer a totally inadequate cold weather payments scheme. If one is lucky, that scheme will provide a couple of £7 payments. The scheme costs 50p to administer for every £1 paid in benefit. It comes into operation once it has been triggered by a very complex system, which actually cheated 7,000 claimants in Calderdale last year because the weather station was situated 15 miles away.

The payments go only to some people on income support--not to all. In 1990- 91, only 1.4 million households shared just £8.6 million of benefits. That should be compared to the £800 million spent by the national health service on cold-related diseases, and we should ask ourselves whether the Government spend our money wisely.

The Government have tried to sell what is, in fact, the Prime Minister's scheme, as it was introduced when he was at the Department of Health and Social Security. That scheme is a failure. It is simply a glossy public relations exercise. The Government overrule the trigger and make payments automatic only when it is cold on the Embankment and they are ashamed and embarrassed and forced to act. They then believe that the problem has gone away, but it has not if one is old and cold and relies on the benefits that the Government believe are adequate for people to live on.

My Bill is an opportunity to do something now rather than do too little, too late, as happens so often with the Government. Why was not reducing winter deaths and the number of people dying from hypothermia a target area in the "Health of the Nation" White Paper ? It is appropriate that I should call for that matter to be included with special targets. For example, let us try to achieve the EC average by the year 2000. That is not too much to ask. We should also call for an interdepartmental committee of Social Security, Health, Energy and Housing Ministers--that is, if the Minister for Housing and Planning deems it appropriate to turn up--so that a concerted and co-ordinated effort can be made to tackle the problems of being old and cold.

I should also ask the question that thousands, if not millions, of people are asking at present. With the current

Column 883

dispute in the coal industry, how can anybody justify one cold-related death when we have so much coal in the ground? We should aim to keep miners in work and let them dig the coal to stop the tragic and unnecessary cull of the elderly.

If the Department of Health, with its "Keep Warm This Winter" telephone helpline, which last year received more than 21,000 calls--mainly from elderly people asking for help with fuel bills and insulation costs--is serious, it will add its considerable weight to supporting the Bill. For all its public relations, the Department knows that not one person who called could obtain help with a fuel bill or with insulation costs, which is what the majority of them asked for.

We want real help for elderly people. We do not want what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) offered when she was at the Department of Health--advice that pensioners should knit woolly hats. We want real help. I call upon the Government to accept my Bill and to stop those outrageously unnecessary deaths.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to brought in by Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. John McFall, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm, Ms. Ann Coffey, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Bill Michie, Mr. John Battle, Mr. Eddie Loyden and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Fuel Cost Credits

Mrs. Alice Mahon accordingly presented a Bill to allow fuel cost credits to be paid from the National Insurance Fund in order to assist those who are on low incomes, or who are otherwise vulnerable, with fuel costs ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

Column 884

House of Commons (Members' Salaries)

Madam Speaker : We now come to motion No. 1 on Members' salaries. May I remind the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) ?

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A question arises over the absence of the Register of Members' Interests. During the debate, as in other debates, hon. Members will have to declare their financial interests outside the House. However, page 386 of "Erskine May" says :

"So far as voting in the House or a committee is concerned, and for this purpose only, the recording of an interest in the Register of Members' Interests is by itself regarded as sufficient disclosure" to follow the resolution of June 1975 requiring disclosure. As no register is available, it is not open to hon. Members to rely on that.

Therefore, I ask you, Madam Speaker, to guide the House and to suggest to hon. Members that, on this occasion when we are dealing with Members' salaries, hon. Members who take part in the debate should actually declare the amount of their outside earnings, and that, if any hon. Member should so wish to do, they make their position clear on a point of order because there is no Register of Members' Interests, which is entirely due to the incompetence or ill will of the Government. That might help to remedy the position sketched out on page 386 of "Erskine May".

Madam Speaker : I expect all hon. Members who speak in the debate to declare their interests, but I cannot expect hon. Members to declare the amount of that interest. Should they wish to do so, of course they are perfectly at liberty so to do. It does not, of course, in a debate such as this, affect the way in which an hon. Member votes in the Division Lobby. I would expect hon. Members to declare their interests in the usual way.

4.23 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) : I beg to move

That the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House--

(a) the salaries of Members not falling within paragraph (b) shall, in respect of service in 1993, be £30,854 ; and

(b) the salaries of Officers of this House and Members receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 or a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972 shall, in respect of service in 1993, be £23,227.

I do not need to detain the House for a speech of great length. The motion is clear in content and in intention. It deals with 1993 only, and it provides for all hon. Members to receive the same pay next year as this. Thus, the full parliamentary salary would remain at the level in force since January 1992 of £30,854. That will also be the case for Members of the European Parliament, who are paid the same as Members of the House.

The motion specifically includes all those in receipt of a reduced parliamentary salary, because they also receive an official salary under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1985. That covers all Ministers, the Leader of the Opposition and his Chief Whip and Deputy Chief Whip,

Column 885

and those whom the Act describes as Officers of the House--Madam Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means and both you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the other Deputy.

The motion also includes those receiving a reduced parliamentary salary because they are also in receipt of a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1972, although the only person covered by that part of the motion is my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the Father of the House, as a former Prime Minister who is still a Member of the House.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : Have any representations been made by MEPs on that matter? What power have they to resist such a regulation?

Mr. Newton : I have taken steps to ensure that the position is known. The hon. Gentleman will know that it has been well established that the pay of MEPs is linked to that of Members of Parliament, and I think that that is understood and accepted by all concerned. The reduced parliamentary salary for Ministers will remain at the level in force since January 1992, which is £23,227.

For completeness, although it does not arise directly from the motion, I should of course add that, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in his autumn statement, Ministers will also not receive an increase in their official ministerial salary in 1993. As Madam Speaker is already aware, I can confirm that the Government will not be bringing forward for 1993 an order under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975. So, for all those in receipt of the reduced parliamentary salary, there will also be no increase in 1993 in their official salaries.

The House is well aware of the context in which these propositions are put before it, and I will therefore touch on them only briefly. The Government's policy as regards public sector pay was clearly set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his autumn statement. Settlements in the year ahead across the whole of the public sector will be constrained within the range 0 per cent. to 1.5 per cent. As my right hon. Friend made clear, restraint in current expenditure, of which pay forms so large a part, is a necessary condition of our ability to direct resources at areas of spending which should rightly have priority, including spending on capital projects. Only by exercising restraint on current expenditure can the inescapable pressures elsewhere in spending programmes be accommodated, and capital spending in particular be given the emphasis widely urged, while keeping to our published plans for public spending as a whole. Those plans form part of a coherent and responsible fiscal and economic strategy, and they were debated and endorsed by the House last week.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire) : Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what amount will be saved to the Treasury if the motion is passed?

Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the sum involved is small. For reasons that I shall touch on, our recommendation is important.

Column 886

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : Was that not a remarkably trivial intervention from the Liberal Benches? It is the principle that is at stake and not the actual cash.

Mr. Newton : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is clear that we believe that it is right--I sense that she believes so too--for the Government and the House to give a lead in exercising restraint. I am grateful to the many hon. Members who have indicated their support for that view by signing early-day motion 834.

Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw) : Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I would support him and vote for the motion if he could guarantee that the cash which should have gone to my pay rise would go to Oxfam or the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and not to the Treasury. If not, I shall vote against it.

Mr. Newton : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said in the first half of his intervention. The Government have looked at what could be spent in certain areas of public expenditure, including those to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and we felt that it was right to ask for the exercise of restraint on forms of current expenditure, including the pay that is under debate. In that sense, it could be said that that request is part of a range of decisions that have enabled more money to be spent in ways that the hon. Gentleman might prefer.

Hon. Members would expect me to say something about the Government's view of what should happen in future years. It has become clear that, in any event, a new resolution would be likely to have been needed because of the substantial changes that have taken place in the structure of civil service pay arrangements with the move to a much greater emphasis on performance- related pay. The existing resolution defines Members pay in terms of "89 of the rate which on 1 January in that year represents the maximum point on the main national pay scale for Grade 6 officers in the Home Civil Service, or if that scale ceases to exist, on the scale which for the time being replaces it (disregarding, in either case, any discretionary pay point on that scale)".

The last point, which is in parenthesis, is particularly important in this context because, by comparison with the previous structure, which provided a scale maximum and a higher range maximum--access to which was discretionary and performance related--the new structure, which has been in place since last August, no longer has a scale maximum, but a pay range defined by minimum and maximum points, with no fixed points in between. Individuals' pay within that range depends entirely on annual assessments of performance. In other words, in relation to the resolution passed by the House in 1987, the word "maximum" has, in effect, changed its meaning-- having previously specifically excluded performance-related payments, it now includes such payments, and at the highest possible level.

In those circumstances, there appear to be two possible interpretations of the existing resolution. One is that it has simply become inoperable, with the result that it would provide no power for Members to have any pay at all, let alone an increase. The other is that its references to excluding performance-related pay should be ignored. That would produce an increase of more than 20 per cent. While there can be little doubt which interpretation the House would have preferred, I think there will be few who

Column 887

would wish to argue that that would have been an appropriate outcome, against the current economic background.

In the light of this, and the fact that, in any event, we cannot know how any civil service pay settlement next year will affect the performance element of the new structure--that structure is in a state of transition itself--the Government's clear recommendation to the House is that it would be neither practical nor right to seek to decide, now, the precise terms for future linkage. That is why the resolution deals only with 1993. We should return to the position for 1994 and beyond towards the end of next year when the position is clearer. I can, however, give the House two clear assurances. First, the Government entirely accept the case for re- establishing a clear and automatic linkage with the civil service, comparable with what the House intended when it passed the existing resolution. We have no wish to return to the situation in which the House has to decide on Members' pay each and every year. Rightly, that is, I think, a very important point for the House.

Secondly, we do not intend that Members should forgo the pay increase which civil servants already have--the 3.9 per cent. for 1992 paid in August, which would, in normal circumstances, have been expected to carry through to Members pay in January--as well as have no increase in respect of the forthcoming year. In other words, we do not intend that Members should be permanently disadvantaged by 3.9 per cent. in comparison with the civil service.

I turn lastly to pensions, about which I am aware that some concern has been expressed, and which are indeed the subject of an amendment by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), to whom I shall of course listen with care.

Before making some comment on that, however, I should first make it quite clear that the motion before the House has no effect whatever on pensions already in payment. Those pensions, and the arrangements for increasing them, remain precisely as they are. Parliamentary pensions in payment, like other pensions with the same uprating formula, will increase by 3.6 per cent. from April 1993, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security in his uprating statement two weeks ago.

However, I recognise, of course, that the amendment is directed at a different point, which is the effect on future pensions of the proposed restraint on pay. As I have said, I shall listen to the right hon. Gentleman with care, not least because I note that his proposal does not go down the path of seeking to draw a contribution from the taxpayer, which would not be available to other groups affected by restraint, in respect of payments related to a notional salary. It provides rather for Members to be able to make additional payments entirely at their own expense, to offset the effects of restraint. Perhaps though, I might make two observations which he, the House and other Members of the fund who have put their names to his amendment may wish to bear in mind.

First, since the parliamentary pension scheme is a defined benefit scheme-- that is to say, benefits are based on the salary payable at the time of retirement--and since the longer-term position will not become clear until the House has debated and decided it at a later stage, hon. Members would not find it at all easy to determine whether and to what extent they wished to take advantage of what is proposed in the amendment, without some risk of

Column 888

making payments which brought them no benefit. Secondly, taking account of that, it could be better to examine the alternative possibility of building on the general provisions introduced by the Government for additional voluntary contributions in pension schemes generally.

There are two ways in which that can be done. There is what is called in the occupational pension trade a free-standing additional voluntary contribution--that is, paying such contributions, which are tax-relieved within the Inland Revenue limits, to one of the many schemes available commercially. Secondly, there are AVC schemes which are provided through the occupational pension scheme, in this case the parliamentary scheme, which have advantages in simplifying administration and keeping costs down.

Should the trustees, or Members generally, feel that it would be helpful in the spirit of the amendment to explore the other possibilities more fully, I want to make it clear that I would be happy to assist. I hope that that is a constructive thought for the House and for the right hon. Gentleman. In ending with that thought, I commend the main motion to the House.

4.37 pm

Mrs. Margaret Beckett (Derby, South) : The debate is a matter for the House of Commons as a body and for Members to make their decision on a free vote. For that reason, it is essential that, in the fairly short time allowed to us, as many hon. Members as possible should have a chance to speak. Accordingly, I shall seek to curtail my remarks.

What we are debating is not a small part of a coherent policy for pay, not even in the public sector. Like most matters to which the Government set their hand, it is a mess. Nor is the specific proposal as it relates to Members of Parliament a policy even for our pay. It is not a policy ; it is a smokescreen. The Government have announced a wholly arbitrary limit for public sector pay and they hope, by including Members of Parliament in its provisions, to create an illusion of fairness and the impression that the highest paid are taking their fair share of a concept that is usually completely absent from their thinking or policy.

The highest-paid, even in the public sector, will not be affected by the proposal. Next year, the senior ranks of the civil service, judges and so on will, I understand, receive more than Members of Parliament and more than the 1.5 per cent. which is supposed to be the general limit. We on these Benches object to the proposals for public sector pay.

During the election campaign some six months ago, the Conservative party, from the Prime Minister down, swore to the people that, because our economy was fundamentally sound, cuts in income tax could be afforded, as well as increases in public spending and improvements in public services, and that no cost-cutting measures and no revenue-raising measures, such as increases in other taxes or charges, would be needed.

Mr. Rod Richards (Clwyd, North-West) : The hon. Lady has just said that there should not be a limit on public sector pay. Is that correct, or does she believe that there should be a limit--in which case, what does she think that limit should be?

Mrs. Beckett : There should be a proper and fair--seen to be fair-- policy for working out public sector pay along

Column 889

the lines of the pay review bodies and other existing bodies. That is the Labour party's policy. Did the Conservative party manifesto tell people in the public sector what the Government's policy would be?

Now that the election is over, the Conservative party claims, as the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) just did, that public spending plans can be preserved only at the expense of pay levels and jobs in the public sector. For a married public sector worker on £10,000 a year, even an increase of 1.5 per cent. is equivalent to a reduction in income, equivalent to an increase in the basic rate of tax of 7p in the pound. So much for the argument that income tax cuts could be afforded and that there would be no penalty after the election.

Let there be no mistake : the Government's overall proposals will mean not pay cuts to save jobs, but pay cuts and job losses. It is no accident that the proposal for Members' salaries is not for a 1.5 per cent. increase--as many hon. Members thought after the first publicity--in place of the increase in payment from last August for the civil service grade with which our pay is linked, but for a pay freeze. A freeze is exactly what the Government's proposals imply for many low-paid workers in the public sector.

Local authorities have costed the effects on their pay bill of pay awards for the police, the fire service, the teaching profession and other services, already made and in payment. The combined effect of those existing awards and other employment costs leaves local authorities some £200 million short of the money that they already need to meet next year's pay bill--that is without an increase under the formula. With universal capping of expenditure, job and service cuts are likely to have to be made to balance the books.

Moreover, we already know that, where incremental pay scales are in place, by law those increments must and will be paid. If funding is geared to 1.5 per cent. of the total bill, increments for some will mean a pay freeze for others. That is why Members of Parliament are to have a pay freeze. If we had been given 1.5 per cent. and it later emerged that many public sector workers were facing a pay freeze, the Government would rightly be accused of sleight of hand on their own pay.

That is why I cannot support the Government motion tonight. Members of Parliament are being used not to set an example but as a stalking horse. It is not only in the matter of a freeze that I fear that we are being used to help set a precedent that I deplore. By moving the motion, the Government are breaking, at least temporarily, a linkage with a particular civil service grade. The House has voted for the principle of a linkage on no less than three occasions--a vote and a principle which the Government finally and reluctantly accepted. Opposition Members are well aware that the history of the Government's term of office shows that there is nothing that they would like better than to break every pay formula and linkage, and to dissolve every pay review body and every independent and fair system of pay assessment in the public and private sectors. They would love to move away from any form of national pay bargaining or concept of a rate for the job. They tried repeatedly to persuade pay review bodies for nurses,

Column 890

doctors and dentists to abandon national pay bargaining. They tried to break the pay formulae for the police and the fire service. The motion is all part of the same approach.

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) : Will the hon. Lady try to persuade Labour-controlled local authorities to comply with the pay restraint, or will she encourage them to make whatever pay deals they care to arrange?

Mrs. Beckett : Either the hon. Gentleman was not listening or he did not understand the purport of what he heard. Local authorities are already underfunded for the pay settlements that have already been awarded and are now in payment. They will have a horrendously difficult job-- [Interruption.] What is the hon. Gentleman's message and that of his Government? The Government are cheating local authorities on the funding that they have already given for the pay settlements to which they have agreed. Local authorities will have a horrendous job, and I do not propose to try to second-guess them in their difficulties.

The Government would love to break all pay formulae and abandon all pay review bodies. Most recently, in a move which I presume, from his remarks, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) will not support, the Government are moving towards abolishing even the wages councils, the only protection still available to 2 million low-paid women in work.

At the outset, I reminded hon. Members that this was a matter for the House and individual Members. Each hon. Member has a duty to make up his or her mind-- [Interruption.] Hon. Members have a duty to take account of the overall income and circumstances of their household.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : I presume that the hon. Lady is doing that for hers.

Mrs. Beckett : I most certainly am, and my husband does not earn the salaries paid in the European Parliament.

Each of us has a duty to make up his or her mind on the matter. I presume that press reports that Conservative Members are on a two-line Whip are mistaken, as this is clearly a matter for the House. As it is a matter for individuals, I hope that all hon. Members will consider their individual responsibility.

I deplore and oppose the Government's policy, so I shall not vote for their motion. But I do not seek a special privilege for hon. Members which I cannot secure for other, often low-paid, public sector workers. Consequently, I cannot and shall not vote against the Government motion that we should be treated as others will be treated, and I shall not vote on the main amendment.

However, I have observed that many Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, who I believe is a member of Lloyd's, have signed an early-day motion supporting Government policy, something which the Minister understandably applauded in his speech.

It is an unfortunate coincidence that the Government have found it necessary to stage this debate just before--I believe only days before--the setting up of a Select Committee on Members' Interests. We lack up-to-date information on the other earnings, fees or emoluments of Conservative Members. If they are new Members, like the

Column 891

hon. Member for Ribble Valley, we lack any information at all about their personal financial circumstances. It must therefore be a matter of personal honour. As Madam Speaker said before she left the Chair, no honourable Member should speak or vote in this debate to support a pay freeze for others--

Mr. Terry Dicks (Hayes and Harlington) : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a wonderful smell of cooking coming from underneath the Benches. I do not know whether we now have to cook our own meals as well as listen to debates, but can you help by arranging for whoever is cooking to stop, because the smell of eggs, bacon and fried bread is rather appetising?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes) : I am not sure that that matter falls within my competence, but I can certainly ensure that the message is relayed.

Mrs. Beckett : I hope that no hon. Member will speak or vote in this debate to support a pay freeze for others without declaring in full the extent to which they depend on the salary which they intend to freeze.

Among the Tory Back Benchers who signed the early-day motion to which the Lord President referred are more than 50 who have declared interests, but there are many new Members of whom we know nothing. Between them, the 50 share more than 120 directorships and consultancies. Some Back-Bench Conservative Members are fortunate enough to have inherited wealth and others--all credit to them--have made money. But we should be spared the lectures about our duty to set an example on such matters from those who have the means to evade the difficulties.

Mr. Bryan Davies (Oldham, Central and Royton) : A reference to the Tory Whips Office might be helpful. Does my hon. Friend remember that, before the last election, the Whips were busy distributing largesse to their colleagues in the form of consultancies so that they could sustain themselves in the manner to which they appear to be accustomed?

Mrs. Beckett : I shall not be drawn further on that matter. I do not know whether the Lord President of the Council intends to speak again, but one issue that is of concern to me and, I believe, the House became apparent when I looked into the background of today's debate. The right hon. Gentleman said that there had been a change in the arrangements of pay for the civil service grade with which Members' pay was previously linked, and that there was now a pay scale. I understand that the Treasury has refused to give the Fees Office any information about that pay scale. It has certainly refused to identify the point on the scale to which Members' pay might be linked.

Today, the Lord President did not even give us the minimum and the maximum of the pay scale to which Members' pay was previously linked ; he merely said that the maximum would be far above our reach. It is important that we have any available information. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the relevant resolution, and some hon. Members may wish to look at the impact of the change on their pension contributions. It may be difficult for them to do so if they lack the basic information. The figure in the measure is based on the

Column 892

average of 3.9 per cent. quoted for all public sector settlements. It does not necessarily bear any relationship to the grade to which Members' pay was linked.

I should be glad if the Lord President would clarify his further comments. We are talking about the consequences of last year's pay increase, and there is concern that, if civil service pay for the relevant grade is frozen for the year ahead, Members' pay might be frozen for two years. That is a source of particular anxiety to hon. Members who are nearing retirement, because of the impact on their pensions.

We deplore the Government's policy whereby cuts and savings will fall entirely arbitrarily across the public sector, affecting low-paid people in particular. We utterly reject the notion that what is happening to Members' pay should be used as a precedent to attack and undermine the position of other workers in the public sector. Above all, we reject the notion that the Government are saving jobs. Jobs directly related to the public sector will be lost because the Government cheat on the funding, even of today's package. More generally, their pay policy is intended to remove £1.5 billion from the economy. It has been estimated that cutting current Government expenditure by £1.5 billion will mean that almost 90,000 jobs will be lost across the public and private sectors as demand in the economy is reduced. That is not even a coherent or consistent pay policy ; it is an ill-thought-out shambles--gesture politics.

The only way in which the motion relates to the wider problems of the country and the economy is that it is one small part of the process whereby the Government demonstrate their incompetence, break their promises and betray the trust that so many have placed in them.

4.55 pm

Next Section

Home Page