| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : He is too busy to be here.
Column 904
The hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) has 13 outside interests. He is the managing partner in Marshall Consultants and the chairman of Direct Business Satellite Systems. He is also a non-executive director of Integrated Information Technology Ltd. He is parliamentary adviser to British Aerospace--and, by God, it needs an adviser. He is also parliamentary adviser to Cable and Wireless, Comsat, Dynamic Engineering Inc., the Society of West End Theatres and Williams Holdings. Would you believe it, the hon. Gentleman is also a member of Lloyd's.Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hoyle : No. I am sorry if this is upsetting the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) has a few nice little earners. He is a director of Le Carbone Lorraine, Stirling Winthrop, the Small Business Bureau and Cape plc, whatever that means. It may have South African connections, but I am not sure. The hon. Gentleman is consultant to Digital Equipment Company Ltd., the Association of Authorised Public Accountants, Bywater Group Ltd., the Unitary Tax Campaign, Humphreys and Glasgow Ltd., Harlingspear Ltd., Allied Partnership Group plc and Freight Complex Development and Management Ltd. One of his clients--he lists this because of questions that were asked in the Select Committee--is Ian Greer Associates.
I do not think that the right hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) will feel the pinch. He signed the early-day motion. He has directorships with Nexus Marketing, Fairey Group, Leica plc, GEC Marconi and Carroll Group. He is a partner in Terrington Management, and he lists other clients. I do not think that he will go too short in 12 months.
I now refer to the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter). At least he has-- [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. There is an increasing tendency for dialogue to take place between Conservative and Opposition Members, which is not acceptable.
Mr. Hoyle : I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is not dialogue. Government Members are all directors and consultants of different companies. It is certainly not a dialogue. I am simply trying to make the point--
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. I think perhaps the hon. Member misunderstood me. I was referring to sedentary comments being thrown across the Floor while the hon. Member is making his speech.
Mr. Hoyle : I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that comment. I refer now to the hon. Member for Wirral, South. He has directorships of County Seeds Ltd. and Decision Makers Ltd. He is employed as parliamentary adviser to the Hearing Aid Association Wang (UK) Ltd. and Impac plc. He is a consultant to Air Boss Ltd. and Groen Ltd. He is also a solicitor with Fanshaw Porter and Hazelhurst.
Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South) : I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his unfailing courtesy in giving me notice that he would put the stiletto between my ribs. Perhaps he might accept that my great failing in life is that no one has asked me to be president of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs. I have no
Column 905
doubt that the job would take a great deal of time outside the House, but I do not know whether there is much money in it. The hon. Gentleman should note that my interests are properly declared. He should also accept that some of my interests in the manufacturing and service industries keep my feet on the ground while his head is in the clouds.Mr. Hoyle : The simple reason why the hon. Gentleman has not been asked to be the president of the ASTMS is that, as I understand it, he is not a member of a trade union. I must remind him that the ASTMS no longer exists so it is not possible for him to be the president. The ASTMS has become a new union, and is still growing, with more than 6,000 members. So he could not possibly be the president of ASTMS.
Mr. Porter : I apologise, but I must go now, not to a board meeting but to attend a lobby of my constituents.
Mr. Hoyle : I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is going. When I gave way to him I thought that he might have told us what these nice little earners bring in for him.
I am sure that there is one thing missing from the register : it does not say what people earn from their interests. What I am saying is that it is hypocritical for those hon. Members who signed the early-day motion and whom I have mentioned--I could mention more of them--to support the Government's motion. They still have nice little earnings from moonlighting. The register does not tell us how much they earn. My point is that they certainly will not suffer by giving up the increase. The Government are asking us to give up the increase.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said from a sedentary position that some Opposition Members may have outside jobs. All I am saying is that all hon. Members should declare what they earn. If the hon. Member has any interests, I hope that he will register them. Perhaps alongside those interests he should show what they bring in for him. We can only guess what Conservative Members earn from their interests. However, it is clear from the register that many hon. Members must earn more from their interests than their parliamentary salary.
Mr. Nigel Evans : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hoyle : No, because many other hon. Members want to speak. It is a case of playing politics tonight so that the Government can impose pay restraint on many of the lowest paid in the country. I for one will have no part of it.
5.55 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge) : I start by declaring my interest in the Hill and Smith Group, the Federation of Associations of Specialists and Sub Contractors, Port Enterprises Ltd, the Waterfront Partnership, Howard de Walden Estates, MinOtels and Dunn and Baker. [ Hon. Members :-- "How much do you earn?"] I earn considerably less than I deserve.
The debate has thrown up one aspect which I had not expected to examine but I think that it is useful. It is not so much the question whether the gesture should be made
Column 906
--I will not fight shy of that phrase--but it has thrown into debate the whole process by which hon. Members salaries are fixed. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) and others said that there cannot be a Member in the House who wants to go through the invidious business each year of debating our pay rise. It is unpleasant, it is uncomfortable, it is demeaning, and it does not serve any purpose.Shortly after I became a Member of the House I was pleased to see a linkage established. We could all ask whether the linkage was appropriate. It certainly made the position of senior principal in the civil service one of the most unpopular positions that any civil servant would ever want to hold. To my knowledge, many civil servants hoped that it was a grade that they might be able to overstep at some stage. It is obviously a good idea to have the automatic linkage, whatever level is chosen.
As I understood my right hon. Friend, there seems to be an element of doubt about whether the linkage can exist in the future. I certainly hope that, when the matter is examined next year, the principle of linkage will be there and that the Government will honour, as it were, the spirit of it, if not the letter. So whatever grade we are linked to, I hope that it will not simply be a lower grade with a view to making savings.
There is nothing wrong in the Government expecting Members of Parliament to make a gesture on this occasion. However, I will be slightly saddened if, in the years to come, the principle of linkage is accepted but the link is made to some other grade which is even less than 87 per cent. of, to give one example, the deputy chef in the Members' Dining Room.
It is difficult to get any fix on what the level of pay should be. It is interesting that the Library has produced a paper which I think is one of the most helpful pieces of information that I have seen on the matter. The paper sets out the level of Members' pay from 1911 to the present day, but the levels are adjusted at 1992 prices. That shows that the pay in August 1911, adjusted to today's prices, was £21,300 as against today's figure of £30,900--obviously, I am rounding out the figures. So it looks as though the level of pay in real terms for a Member of Parliament in 1911 was about two thirds of the level today. Hon. Members should bear in mind the fact that we are going back 80 years and that there has been enormous social change, both in the profile of people elected and, indeed, in those who put themselves forward for election to the House. If that sort of differential has been maintained, it shows that we have probably been getting it right. I should like to think that we will bear that in mind when the linkage is restored in some shape or form.
This is an appropriate time to mention my next point ; the nexus is fairly clear. Even if I take the view that the level of Members' salaries is about right, I certainly could not say the same for ministerial pay with which it is closely connected. A few years ago, the then Solicitor-General went to the 100th anniversary of a Conservative club in the west country. In his speech, he said that his salary in the 1980s was virtually the same as that of his predecessor 100 years before when he had opened the same Conservative club.
I do not say that we should restore ministerial salaries to what the Solicitor-General was earning then, relatively speaking, but something has gone wrong with the system. It is all very well to expect people who accept ministerial
Column 907
office not to go into it for profit, but there comes a time when the gap between what Ministers are paid and what able people might expect to command in the outside market becomes so vast that the public interest is not served. I would say that whether the Conservative or the Labour party were in office.There are former Labour Ministers in the House too, and they will know that a Minister receives a reduced salary in his capacity as a Member of Parliament. I do not understand how we can justify paying a Minister of the Crown less than a Member of Parliament simply because he is a Minister. There is no reason in principle for that. There is never an ideal time to make such alterations--to restore ministerial salaries to what they should be and to stop the reduction in their salary as Members of Parliament--but it is clear that over the past 10 years, to take no longer period, there will have been opportunities for the problem to be addressed, and that those opportunities were not taken. I should like to think that at some time in the future they will be taken--although I have been in the House long enough to believe that it is highly unlikely that that disparity will ever be dealt with as it should be. To coin a recent royal euphemism, ministerial salaries are relatively insubstantial, bearing in mind the task that Ministers are expected to perform. It is probably about right that in due course there should be a linkage for Members' pay. But what about the gesture which is being requested? There is a difference between gestures and gesture politics. It is difficult enough to say to a low-paid worker, "Here am I on £30,000 a year"--that may seem a relatively modest sum, but it is hugely more than the average constituent of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) earns--"but I think I should have my 3.9 per cent. this year, because that is what the linkage will be." I do not think that that would go down very well, and I can understand that.
The hon. Lady might say to her constituent, "I have struck a real blow for you today. I have really done something for low-paid workers in my constituency : I am prepared to abstain." She did not say whether she would take the money if her abstention meant that the money would be paid. Probably for reasons of malice and cynicism, I should like to see the hon. Lady say to a low-paid worker in her constituency, "Vote for me ; I am the one who did not take a percentage increase on £30,000 a year." For many of our constituents, that is a huge amount of money, and I think that she would find that gesture difficult to sustain.
Sometimes gestures have to be made, even if they engender cynicism. It is fair to say that there is a limit to what the country can afford. We have been told in the autumn statement that the Government believe 1.5 per cent. to be the appropriate maximum increase in the public sector. I cannot prove that the Government are right or that they are wrong. Perhaps the figure should be 1.4 per cent. or 1.8 per cent.--none of us can say--but every penny that goes into the pockets of public sector workers such as ourselves has to come out of somebody else's pay packet, either through taxation or by borrowing, which in turn has to be paid for out of taxation. The Government have to estimate what the country can afford in recession.
Some may say, "I do not agree with that ; I do not agree with pay policies at all." Fine. I do not agree with rain in summer, but it happens, and one has to cope with it. Members of Parliament constantly make a whole range of demands to Ministers on behalf of their constituents and
Column 908
find, inevitably, that those demands cannot be satisfied. Against such a background, I do not see how the Government can do anything but set a fairly strict level, nor how Members of Parliament can expect not to make some contribution.I accept that some Labour Members do not agree with the policy--I think they are wrong, but that is their view--but I do not understand how, even if he believes the policy to be wrong, an Opposition Member on £30,000 a year can say to a public sector worker who may earn £8, 000, £9,000 or £10,000 a year that he opposed the Government because he believed the policy to be wrong. One cannot abstain on the issue. That does not work ; it is an issue on which one has to make some judgment.
Debates on Members' pay tend to follow a ritual pattern, as those who have listened to them over the years know. One idea, as expressed by the hon. Member for Derby, South and the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), is that there is something hypocritical in a Member of Parliament with outside interests taking a view on the matter, or signing an early-day motion-- [Interruption.] We hear the chorus of abuse again. One would have a little more confidence in the sincerity of that chorus if the hon. Member for Warrington, North, in his rambling researches, had hit upon the relatively few Labour Members who are employable in any other context. There are many who serve in such positions with great distinction
Mr. Bryan Davies : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Nicholls : I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I fully understand why the hon. Member for Great Grimsbly (Mr. Mitchell) might not be here today : he has other things to attend to. He is a highly effective Member of Parliament, and so long as he declares his interests in the proper way, there is no reason why he should not be entitled to earn those sums. That makes him a rarity on the Labour Benches. So many Labour Members are unemployable in any capacity but that of former members of the polytechnocracy. When reading reports of debates such as this one, it is interesting to examine the comments of those whose reflections on the way in which Conservative Members earn money are the sternest. Let us consider the comments of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). There is a man who, now that street cleaning has been thoroughly mechanised, is totally unemployable anywhere other than in this House. As recently as 13 July the hon. Gentleman made clear his attitude to being a Member of Parliament. In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, I must tell the House that his remarks, which are recorded at column 835 of Hansard, were made on one of the relatively rare occasions when he was here after prime time television had finished at 4.30 pm. He made it clear that he saw the job of a Member of Parliament as a nine-to-five job, for which he was obviously quite content to receive £30,000 a year. If that is someone's attitude to his work, it is understandable why nobody would employ him to do anything else.
The fact is that what many Conservative Members--and all too few Opposition Members--bring to the Chamber is some knowledge of what goes on in the outside world. There is something thoroughly unsatisfactory about Members who have never gainfully earned their living in their lives, other than perhaps--
Column 909
Mr. Bryan Davies rose --Mr. Nicholls : I do not want to forget the hon. Gentleman. I know that we have a lot of time, so I shall be able to give way to him in a moment.
There is something thoroughly unsatisfactory about hon. Members who bring nothing to the Chamber other than bile, biliousness, class hatred and a certain distaste for those of their colleagues who are capable of earning anything other than a Member's salary. It is thoroughly distasteful that the contributions which those few--and we many--can bring to the House should not be heard.
Mr. Davies : Will the hon. Gentleman clarify two matters? First, does he include his list of consultancies and outside occupations in his election address and tell his constituents that those must be taken into account while he is fulfilling his duties as their Member of Parliament? Secondly, when he talks about the sacrifices that we should all make, is he prepared to quantify the sacrifice, in terms of his income, that he will make if the motion is passed?
Mr. Nicholls : I assume--although one should not always make such assumptions when dealing with interjections from Labour Members--that the hon. Gentleman is capable of working out 3.8 per cent., or 1.5 per cent., or 0 per cent., of the existing parliamentary salary. So he will be able to work out--at a stroke, given sufficient time--the amount of income which I would forgo. The hon. Gentleman may say that it does not sound very much. Frankly, on £30,000 a year, it is not very much--but every little helps.
The hon. Member for Derby, South was making the same point when she said that people had to assess the worth of the pay rise in the light of their own personal circumstances. There may be many Opposition Members who, in their personal circumstances, see no necessity to seek additional employment. I have no objection to that, but Members should be entitled to make that judgment for themselves.
The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) wanted to know what was in my election address. I am flattered about that. I certainly mentioned in my election address the fact that I was a practising solicitor and that was publicised as I went through the selection process. I made it clear that I worked for a living and that I had not come up through the more traditional avenues with which the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton will be familiar. I had not come up through the unions, the polytechnocracy or the Labour party research department. I made it clear that I continued to work for a living and that I believed that I would bring to the House of Commons--and to that rarefied atmosphere in which hon. members worked--experience of work in the outside world.
To cheer up the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton, I can tell him that a local newspaper produced a detailed profile of the various parliamentary candidates and it listed their outside activities and consultancies. To confirm what I hope was the hon. Gentleman's assumption, I am delighted to tell him that I had a great deal more experience of the outside world than any of my opponents. Through my connections, I was able to show that I had a far wider range of knowledge of the issues that affected my constituents than any of the other candidates. I hope that that will reassure them.
Column 910
I had expected to hear more in this debate about our recent debate on the increase in hon. Members' expenses. The debate was interesting in many ways because the Government thought that it would be helpful to give a lead about what they thought hon. Members should do. That lead was very helpful and I examined it carefully. Had I been a member of the Government, I would have probably made the recommendation to the House that the Government had made. However, I am not a member of the Government and, in the end, I had to make what I thought was the correct judgment.While I welcome guidance from the Government in many areas, I decided that I could not welcome guidance from the Government if that guidance told me that the demands that are rightly made on me as an hon. Member were not to be satisfied as I would not have the necessary funds to satisfy them.
Therefore, I thought that the issue should not be expressed, as it was so often expressed, as simply more expenses for hon. Members, but that instead there should be an upper limit against which an hon. Member could draw as necessary. I was one of the relatively few hon. Members to vote for that idea. A great many more, who are conspicuous today as they were then, did not turn up and vote for the proposal. There is all the difference in the world between the expenses necessary to provide the kind of services to one's constituents that they are increasingly demanding and an increase in salary. Obviously, cynics in the Press Gallery and the cynics who write to hon. Members will say, "No, it's all the same really. An increase in expenses is the same as an increase in salary." A business man put precisely that point to me. When I asked him whether he thought that every time he gave his secretary a new word processor or an upgraded typewriter that increased his standard of living, I did not receive a reply. Expenses and salaries are entirely different matters.
When we come out of this recession, public pay will be dealt with as it was before. Whatever the complexion of the Government may be, every year they will tell us that times are hard and restraint is necessary. We will always be told that. That has been part of the Treasury abacus and word processor since Adam was a lad. Some people will negotiate, some will bargain, others will have linkages and others will have formulae. That is the normal world.
However, today's world is not a normal world. It is a world of recession. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have friends or relatives who have lost their jobs during the recession. People have suffered greatly. I doubt whether there are any Conservative or Opposition Members who do not have friends or acquaintances who have lost everything in the recession. At the end of the day, with people in that position, we must make a gesture and be prepared to take the lead.
Although 3.8 per cent., or even 1.5 per cent., of £30,000 is not very much, it sets a key note. We must be prepared to say that that is what we are recommending for the country and that is what we are prepared to take ourselves. That should be agreed on both sides of the House.
6.13 pm
Mr. Derek Fatchett (Leeds, Central) : The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) was absolutely correct when he said that the proposal is a gesture. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) called
Column 911
it a smoke screen. However, the value of the hon. Gentleman's gesture would be greater if we achieved one or two objectives set out in the amendment that I tabled but which Madam Speaker did not select.The hon. Member for Teignbridge made two points upon which I will comment. He said that we live in a world of recession. Opposition Members remember what Conservative Members were saying only seven months ago. Not one Conservative Member said that there would be a public sector pay freeze. Did any Conservative Member state in his or her election manifesto that they would support a public sector pay freeze? Not one of them did. They all said that it was possible to have tax cuts and more public spending and that we were coming out of recession. The green shoots were everywhere. They were on every election address--
Mr. Nicholls : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fatchett : No. The hon. Gentleman spoke for a long time.
Mr. Nicholls : Will the hon. Gentleman give way with regard to my election address?
Mr. Fatchett : No. I am sure that that is a very important document and that it will be read by posterity.
Conservative Members made promises, but not one of them has been reproduced in reality because the recession continues. However, the Government are now implementing a public sector pay freeze which is a promise that they did not make.
Conservative Members are now starting to cry crocodile tears for the unemployed and the low-paid. Let us consider what has happened under this Conservative Government. More than 2 million more people are unemployed now than in 1979. In the face of that, Conservative Members supported the Government in the Lobby just a week ago when the Government removed wages council protection from the lowest paid. I do not want to hear arguments from Conservative Members about protecting the low-paid and the unemployed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South was right. The proposal is a smokescreen and the Government are looking for a fig leaf as they stumble from crisis to crisis and policy to policy. The Leader of the House hinted- -this point was picked up by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)--that there will be a restoration of the amount of money that might be lost this year because of the loss of linkage on this occasion. At some time in the future, the pay of hon. Members will be restored in real terms to the value that they might have enjoyed if there had been no freeze on their pay this year.
Is that correct? If so, I point out gently to the Leader of the House that it is worth while re-reading the history of such matters. Every public sector pay freeze has created a dam that burst as the public sector caught up. If the Leader of the House is going to be consistent, can he tell us whether, if hon. Members' pay is to be allowed to catch up in real terms, the same will be true for teachers, nurses, doctors, low-paid public sector workers and school dinner ladies? Will the pay of all those people be allowed to catch up? That is an important message which should come from our debate. There are two crucial points to be made about our annual debate on Members' pay. First, as hon. Members have said, we need an acceptable system to determine our
Column 912
pay. In many respects, it is not appropriate for the House to have this debate. Not many hon. Members enjoy the debate. We need a system of linkage ; in that regard, I agree with the hon. Member for Teignbridge : it should be restored.The details of that linkage may now be subject to further discussion or, to use the impolite term in this place, negotiation. Nevertheless, there must be a principle of linkage so that we do not go through this process every year. This is not gesture politics today ; it is almost macho politics. We are showing whether we are prepared to make a sacrifice, and then we try to lead people into what is obviously an elephant trap in respect of our pay. That is an embarrassment, and it is foolish. If we are to have an orderly public sector pay system, I suggest to the Leader of the House that hon. Members could, as a lead, have an orderly system for their own pay.
Mr. Robathan : I agree entirely that we should have an orderly pay system for Members of Parliament and that it should be linked. I am new to the House, so the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I am wrong, but I understand that we are to vote on the pay increase for the current financial year. I think that I am right in saying that the pay increase for nurses, teachers and civil servants for the current financial year has already been decided and awarded. This is a back-pay increase for us which we are forgoing.
Mr. Fatchett : The hon. Gentleman is not absolutely correct. He will find that there are many public sector pay increases that have to be determined, and whether they can be fully funded by local government and national health service money is a crucial question. There is an argument about linkage. I hope that we opt for linkage, establish it, keep it, and do not repeat this debate in future. The second crucial principle for any system of Members' pay is openness. That is why I tabled my amendment. One or two Conservative Members have started to follow my lead. My amendment is a bridge-building, consensual amendment. It would make sure that, in the Register of Members' Interests, people disclosed the finances that they obtained from the outside interests that they pursued. I am not saying for a moment that people should stop pursuing those interests. I am not saying that they should be unelectable in any sense if they have outside interests : that decision will be taken by the electorate. If electors feel that a Member of Parliament has such tremendous ability, enthusiasm and energy that he or she can hold 12 outside directorships and six consultancies and still do the job of a Member of Parliament and they vote for that person, so be it. I certainly do not object to that, although I might question the judgment of the electorate.
Mr. Nicholls rose --
Mr. Fatchett : I shall develop my point further and then give way. I spent a little time looking at the Register of Members' Interests--relating to the previous Parliament, unfortunately--and looked up Conservative Members' interests. My principle applies to all hon. Members. Before the previous election, on the Conservative Benches there were 359 directorships and 222 consultancies. Let us say that each one attracts a fee of £2,000 a year. That might be on the low side--
Column 913
Mr. Fatchett : I am a reasonable and modest man trying to build bridges across the House. Let us say that it is £2,000 a year. That amounts to £1.2 million going into Conservative Members' pockets. An important constitutional question needs to be asked : what is that money buying? People who spend money on hon. Members want to buy something, and it is called influence over Government policy. We know that from the American system. The American system is corrupt. That is why they talk about pork barrels and the influence that corporations have on congressmen and senators. My amendment says to each and every Member of Parliament, regardless of where he or she sits in the House of Commons, "Declare all your interests in the register and say how much money is involved." That is a very simple principle.
Mr. Nicholls : I have considerable sympathy with the way in which the hon. Gentleman is putting his point, but it is entirely fair that constituents, if they are interested, should know what interests are declared in hon. Members' entries. The hon. Gentleman will know at once that, the moment it comes out, the register is of great interest to the local press. Our salaries as Members of Parliament should be known to the public, because they are a charge on the public Exchequer. The amount of any other income is a matter between the person concerned and the Inland Revenue.
What extra information does the hon. Gentleman think constituents would get in knowing, in a list of outside interests, how much money was being paid? Surely, according to the hon. Gentleman's logic, they should know that those interests exist. Other than public prurience, what extra will constituents have in knowing what sums, if any--that is important--are paid?
Mr. Fatchett : Electors would know a great deal about our political system. They would know about its openness and genuineness. They would also know--I put it no higher than this--that when people speak in the House of Commons they are either free men or less free men. They would also know--it is the nature of life, and let us accept it as such--that, if people are receiving £100,000-a-year directorships, they might try to act in the interests of those directorships. If that is the case, the public have a right to know. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members say, "No, it doesn't happen," let us open the system and see what does happen.
The key to my proposal, which is obviously beginning to attract support among Conservative Members, has the support of the Prime Minister himself. I have not discussed the detailed amendment with the Prime Minister, but I know that he is in favour-- [Laughter.] I would not discuss it with him because he might not remember it, so there is no point in my discussing it with him. The Prime Minister is in favour because he believes in open government, and this matter is part of an open democracy. We need to ensure that the public know what goes on in this place. That is the purpose of my amendment. We have heard many arguments about making a sacrifice--a sacrifice that is equal to that of others outside. There are grades of sacrifice. If one is a £5,000-a-year school dinner assistant, there is one level of sacrifice. If one is a £30,000-a-year Member of Parliament with no other income, there is another level of sacrifice. But if one is a
Column 914
£30,000-a-year Member of Parliament with 11 directorships and eight consultancies, there is yet another level of sacrifice. The hon. Member for Teignbridge lectured us about sacrifice. What amount of money is he earning from outside? Will he give a commitment today that he will take no further increase in those interests next year?Mr. Jonathan Evans (Brecon and Radnor) : Has the hon. Gentleman read today's issue of the Western Mail, the well-known national newspaper of Wales? It contains an interview with his former colleague, Mr. Leo Abse, who was a Member of Parliament for Torfaen. He expresses the view that the House is devalued by having so few Members of Parliament nowadays with outside interests. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in a book that was published some years ago, Mr. Abse offered the observation that, throughout the time that he sat on the Labour Benches, he earned more money than the Prime Minister of the day earned and felt that that freed him from the influence of his own Whips?
Mr. Fatchett : The hon. Gentleman strongly makes my case for my amendment, if it had been selected. My amendment does not relate only to Conservative Members
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fatchett : I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a moment, as her interventions are always a treat for the House.
My amendment relates to all hon. Members, regardless of political colour. We need to know whether outside experience has an important bearing on people's judgments of legislation. Let us look at the extent of that and the amount of money involved so that there is no corruption. That is why we need openness--so that we know that there is no corruption and that people are representing the interests of their constituents. That is what my amendment is intended to do.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that, although that subject is relevant to the debate, his amendment was not selected.
Mr. Fatchett : I understand what you are saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I always defer to your judgment, and quite rightly. I was putting forward a principle for a general pay system for Members of Parliament. I hope that what I have offered so far will win widespread acceptance.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) made some scathing references to family income. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) omitted to mention that he has a number of directorships--for example, in West Highland Publishing Co. Ltd.--and very substantial declarable shareholdings. Many Opposition Members have husbands or wives who are highly paid trade union officials. Should such facts be declared as well?
Mr. Fatchett : I have two comments in response. All directorships and consultancies, regardless of political party, would be declared under the system that I think is fair. Spouses and partners are irrelevant to what goes on.
Mr. Nicholls : So the hon. Gentleman's wife is a wealthy girl.
Column 915
Mr. Fatchett : The answer to that is no. The issue is for the House to decide, but I think that that is an irrelevance. I have some ideas on how we can achieve a better system for Members' pay. We need to discuss our democracy, openness, the information made available and ways to reduce corruption so that the public can have confidence in the system.
The Government have degraded our constitution and our democracy. Too often, the only characteristic taken into account when someone is appointed to public office, either in the national health service or in other places, is that he or she should be "one of us"--a card-carrying member of the Conservative party.
I believe in openness and democracy. We must end corruption, and that is why we need an open system in the House so that we know what people are paid, where it comes from, and what interests they represent.
6.30 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) : I found the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) interesting. I agree that Members' pay should be linked to some grade. I am not sure that I agree with much more, and I do not agree that Members can be bought. Should I ever have a directorship, I assure the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that I shall not be bought.
This is a good time to declare that I have no pecuniary interests. I have a small military pension, which I hope Opposition Members will not deny me. It will not buy me much, although I worked for it for 15 years, and I shall get it every day for the rest of my life, whether I am underneath the arches at Charing Cross station or here. I find it distressing and disappointing that any hon. Member would vote against the motion. Opposition Members should consider their consciences. We all know that Members of Parliament are not overpaid. I have only been a Member for about seven months, and I am astonished at how hard I have worked. I never thought that it would be like this--I find it extraordinarily hard-- [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but by God it is hard. We are not overpaid--I know that and Opposition Members know it. My contemporaries from university are generally earning a great deal more than I am, but I do not mind ; I chose to come to this place, as did Opposition Members.
The job should be rewarding, and it is. Our salaries should be similarly rewarding and fixed to some other pay scheme and we should not have to face the unedifying spectacle of hon. Members voting on their pay.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central mentioned outside interests, but I do not know how hon. Members find time to do other things. Opposition Members are pointing at the Conservative Benches, but when the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) talked about the "stench" from our Benches, I thought that that showed some hypocrisy on the part of Opposition Members. I have the Register of Members' Interests here and I have made one or two notes. I shall not mention names, as that would be invidious-- [Hon. Members :-- "Go on."] No, I shall not.
The director of West Highland Publications Co. Ltd. is not sitting on the Government Benches, nor is the parliamentary adviser to the National Market Traders
| Next Section
| Home Page |