| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 916
Federation, the director of Ladbroke plc or the person who gets the £2,000 consultancy from the National Union of Teachers.Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) : I am well aware that Members in every corner of the House have outside interests. During the last Parliament, 14 per cent. of Opposition Members had outside interests, but 85 per cent. of eligible Conservative Members had paid outside interests.
Mr. Robathan : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but the question is : who would employ Opposition Members? I do not want to be uncomplimentary about the Opposition Member who is the parliamentary adviser to Merck, Sharp and Dohme, and also a member of the conciliation board of the European Space Agency. As Opposition Members know, there are lawyers and Queen's counsel on both sides of the House.
I believe that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is a Queen's counsel, which I find interesting. I am sure that he gains enormously from the experience of being a good lawyer--or not, as the case may be.
Many hon. Members have union sponsorship and its meaning is indistinct ; often, the register states "no pecuniary interest", but I understand that the unions assist greatly in the constituency, by running the office and the political side of things.
Mr. Nigel Evans : Does my hon. Friend not find it interesting that, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said that, because Conservative Members were in receipt of funds from companies, they were somewhat tainted and could not be independent? As my hon. Friend has just intimated, some Opposition Members are sponsored by trade unions. Does that mean that they are tainted, that they are not independent and that they put their unions before their constituents? I have here a list of all Labour Members who are sponsored by trade unions. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that all those Members are tainted?
Mr. Robathan : As I said, should I ever be a director I would be independent, and I hope that Opposition Members who are sponsored by trade unions take the same line.
The work done by Conservative Members is often related to work that they have done in the business world. It is important for us to understand that world, especially at this time of recession. It is no good sitting back with no experience and saying how much hon. Members know about business, when they know nothing. It is important for Members to have up-to-date knowledge of the business world. My up-to-date knowledge of it is not immense, but I try to get out and to learn a little.
Mr. David Hanson (Delyn) : The hon. Gentleman said that it is important to have outside interests and to be aware of the business world. I can fully accept that, but why do not he and his hon. Friends do it for free ?
Mr. Robathan : I had better answer that--it is an interesting argument. I do it for free when I am trying to find out what is going on, but hon. Members have a busy life and perhaps they feel that such work should be rewarded.
Column 917
Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : With my accent, I do as little as I possibly can for free. Throughout my life I have taken the view that something that is worth nothing, is worth nothing. The worth of an individual--a Member of Parliament or whoever--is the worth that he can earn in the marketplace, and we ought not to be ashamed of that, whatever Opposition Members say.
Mr. Robathan : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that interjection and assistance.
Members' interests are not the subject at issue. The motion is important, and Opposition Members degrade it by talking about who is earning threepence for doing what, and who is sponsored by which union or is a director of what company. It is Opposition Members who tell us what terrible trouble the country is in and it is no secret that we are in a severe recession. All of us discover how severe it is when we go around our constituencies.
I have just been sitting on the Employment Select Committee and I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate. We were listening to evidence on the problems facing the horse racing and the coal industries, which are costing this country jobs.
I know--as do Opposition Members--what a catastrophe it is to lose one's job. The recession is a catastrophe to people who have lost their jobs and, yes, the motion is a gesture. It is about leadership.
Mr. Robathan : The hon. Gentleman may scoff, but perhaps that is because the Liberals know nothing about leadership.
The country is looking to us for leadership. [Laughter.] The Opposition may laugh, but that is because they never get the opportunity to lead, and I am not surprised. The people look to us for leadership, and it is obvious that they would get the leadership that they deserved if they voted for the Labour party.
The motion is a gesture, but leadership is about the perceptions of being led. We must be seen to lead by forgoing the pay rise that was awarded before I entered the House.
The private sector, of which the Opposition appear to know very little, has made pay cuts--de facto pay cuts through short-term working and a shortage of overtime.
Mr. Eric Illsley (Barnsley, Central) : Rubbish.
Mr. Robathan : It is not rubbish. You should go and talk to your constituents, but perhaps you never do.
Those people who have no pay except for unemployment benefit are facing a real disaster, and they are looking to hon. Members to see how we will behave. Those in the private sector are suffering real pain, and it is worth hon. Members sharing that pain, if only a tiny part, by forgoing this pay rise.
In these times, public sector wage restraint is necessary. The Opposition may expose their bleeding hearts to public view when they say how they would deal with nurses and teachers, but tonight we are dealing with our pay, not that of teachers or nurses. We must set an example--that is not a dirty word--and show leadership, for that is what we are paid to do. I am absolutely astonished that the Opposition have never heard about leadership or example. [Laughter.] They may laugh, but tomorrow they should go to their constituents, look them in the eye and tell them how they voted tonight.
Column 918
Public sector pay restraint is linked to the private sector because, surprising as it may be to the Opposition, the private sector provides the money to pay the public sector. Public sector money does not grow on trees--it comes from the toil of those in the private sector. I note that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) appears to be convulsed with laughter once more ; he obviously understands little at all. I also note that he is sitting on his own, as usual.The Opposition do not understand about the link between the public and private sectors because they have no experience of real work. Public sector pay restraint is necessary because the money for that pay comes from the private sector. If the Opposition speak to those of their constituents who work in the private sector, they may come to understand that.
Mr. Nick Ainger (Pembroke) : Before I became a Member, I spent all my working life in the private sector. I should be interested to know how many years the hon. Gentleman spent working in that sector.
Mr. Robathan : I have already said that I have no experience of working in the private sector, which is why I receive a military pension. That is why I do not presume, unlike the Opposition, to lecture the private sector on how to run its businesses. I suggest that British industry has been too much influenced by people who have no experience of working in it, let alone any idea of how to run it.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough) : My hon. Friend and I represent Leicestershire. Has he taken the opportunity to read the Leicester Mercury in the past month, which has singled him out for leading the campaign in the county in favour of the motion? Does my hon. Friend accept from me that the readers of that newspaper, who number several thousand-- [Interruption.] --support the campaign that has been conducted for pay restraint, led from the front by Members of this House, such as my hon. Friend and myself?
Mr. Robathan : I am grateful to my hon. Friend and next-door neighbour. The Opposition may scoff, but each evening about 130,000 people read the Leicester Mercury. Many of its readers vote Labour but all of them believe that we should vote in favour of the motion. I want to be able to go to my constituents and look them in the eye. I hope that Opposition Members will be able to do the same with their constituents. I want to be able to say, "I may still be employed and I may be earning nearly £31,000, but I understand your problems and I shall try my best to make those problems a little better." At least that will show that I understand that my constituents look to the House of Commons for leadership and for example. That is what is sought tonight, and I commend the motion to the House.
6.46 pm
Mr. Bill Etherington (Sunderland, North) : I have found tonight's debate interesting, if very confusing.
I apologise to the Leader of the House for not being present when he moved the motion, but, because of Government policies, I seem to spend a lot of time meeting people who come here to lobby hon. Members to let us know how bad things are for them.
Column 919
It was interesting to listen to Conservative Members telling us about free enterprise. They have sought to explain that it is satisfactory for them to have four or five jobs, but I do not accept that when nearly 3 million people are unemployed. That explanation might be satisfactory legally, but it is not satisfactory morally. Conservative Members should remember that when they cast their vote tonight.Mr. Nicholls : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Etherington : No ; I shall not give way because I have been listening to you for long enough and I have just 10 minutes for my speech.
Mr. Nicholls : Oh, come on, try.
Mr. Nicholls rose --
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. While I have been in the Chair, the debate has been good-humoured. I appeal to the House to allow the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) a chance to express his views without interruption.
Mr. Etherington : Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The attempts by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) to intervene prove one thing ; that the old Chinese proverb
"He on thin ice shouts loudest"
is appropriate. Tonight, Conservative Members are showing the electorate exactly what they are.
It is all very well to talk about the £31,000 that hon. Members earn. I happen to be one of those who believe that that is more than enough. Before I became a Member, I was a trade union official, and I took a reduction in salary to come here. I would willingly do so again if that would help the people who will suffer most as a result of the 1.5 per cent. pay limit that has been imposed by the Government.
Tonight's motion is about the failure of the Government's economic policies. Since 1979, they have carried on as the handmaidens of the City, the Confederation of British Industry and other similar interest groups. Their policies have been a dismal failure. Instead of asking those who have done extremely well in their 13 years of rule--the top 5 per cent. who have received almost as much in tax relief as has been earned from North sea oil revenues--to make some contribution to the state, now that the country is not doing so well, they expect the lowest-paid in society to bear that burden. That is not on.
I hope that everyone in the country realises just what you are doing and what you are about. You are about what you have been about for the past 13 years--making the wealthy, wealthier and the poor, poorer. You have robbed old age pensioners, you have reduced the standard of living of the unemployed and the disabled and you are now seeking--
Mr. Nicholls : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is launching a grossly unfair attack on you, and I do not believe for one moment that you have done any of those things. If you have, you may feel that you want to clear the air now.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I note that he did not give that advice
Column 920
when his hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) was making the same mistake. I always hesitate to intervene when new Members are speaking, but I remind all hon. Members that it is not the practice in the House to use the word "you" when hon. Members are not addressing the Chair. That applies to hon. Members on both sides of the House.Mr. Etherington : Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker ; I appreciate that advice.
I was, of course, referring to Conservative Members. I still have a little humility in my soul, unlike many of them. If they had a little humility in their souls, they might realise what was involved in the proposal in the Chancellor's autumn statement. When I heard the first part of the statement, I thought that it was good and that the analysis was excellent. I accept that there are international factors over which the Government have no control, but I also believe that the Government have been responsible for much of their own misfortune by their policies.
It is unfair for Conservative Members to expect the least able in society to bail the Government out, but in many ways that shows what they believe. Many of the people on whom the Government intend to impose a1.5 per cent. maximum pay rise are among the lowest paid and are living below the subsistence level determined by the EC. It would have been better if the Government had considered the introduction of progressive income tax. They do not believe in it, but the important thing about progressive income tax is that, if more money is available to the poorer people, it gets back into the economy and is not invested abroad or put into property, thus raising property prices.
The reason I shall vote against the motion is not that I am concerned about my salary. It will make very little difference to me whether I get 0 per cent., 2 per cent., 4 per cent. or 10 per cent. more. I am not concerned about a pay rise. It may concern Conservative Members because they have proved that they are concerned about trying to acquire wealth. That seems to be their main reason for existing. They do not want to distribute wealth ; rather, they want to exploit those who create it.
That is what the motion is about. If I were to vote for the motion, I should be betraying the people in the public sector who are poorly paid, those who support the policies that I support, because they are the people who would suffer. [Laughter.] It is all very well for Conservative Members to snigger and grin. I do not mind that. I quite enjoy the entertainment which they give me from time to time. I do not want to be churlish about it, but it is time for Conservative Members to think about what they are doing, because the Government will never regenerate the economy as long as they keep to their present policies.
The motion is the precursor to carrying out those policies. I ask Conservative Back Benchers to consider their constituents. We have heard some mealy-mouthed references to looking our electors in the eye. I shall not have any problems in facing my constituents and explaining to them what I have done, because I work on their behalf. We do not need lectures from Conservative Members about how good they are and about how they could be employed when Opposition Members could not.
I know one thing : if I happened to end up on a desert island, I certainly would not be looking to the Government Benches to find the admirable Crichton. If some
Column 921
Conservative Members who are so keen to taunt us when we are genuinely trying to look after our constituents could not find a bank, an estate agent or a solicitor on the desert island, they would have to do what they have done all their lives--look around to see who they could exploit, because they are not capable of doing anything on their own.6.54 pm
Ms Joyce Quin (Gateshead, East) : I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words in the debate, both because I support the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and because I share many of the anxieties voiced by my hon. Friends and other Opposition Members about what the Government are doing via the motion.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), I also tabled an amendment, which unfortunately was not selected. However, I am glad that the concerns expressed in my amendment have been covered in the debate. I should like to refer to them in the next few minutes.
My main concern was that the Government, through the motion, were effectively destroying the linkage between our salaries and the salaries of the civil service grade. It is inconsistent of Conservative Members to argue on the one hand that they are in favour of linkage and on the other to support the Government's proposal effectively to break the linkage. They should think about that inconsistency and illogicality in their argument.
I listened carefully to what the Leader of the House said about securing the linkage for the future and to the assurances that he gave us. I would have felt more reassured if he had brought forward for debate an examination of the link in the light of the changes in the civil service and had not simply put the motion forward as part of the measures which the Government had previously announced in the autumn statement. That is the weakness of the Government's position. I want to make it clear, as my hon. Friends have done, that I do not support what the Government said in the autumn statement about public sector pay. The Government are using us as a smokescreen in order to keep down the pay of the most vulnerable in society. Like many of my hon. Friends, I am not willing to take any lessons from Government Back-Bench Members about concern for low pay when the Government are abolishing wages councils, are refusing to accept Maastricht's social chapter and are presiding over a period when the gap between top earners and the lowest earners has widened so dramatically.
Ministers are out of touch with ordinary Members of Parliament on both sides of the House on the issue. They do not seem to value properly the work of a Member of Parliament who exists on a Member's pay. Recently I came across a flagrant example of that in an article written by the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Lord Ridley, in the Evening Standard. In the article he described what it is like when a Minister loses his position or has to resign : "Resignation from ministerial office is traumatic. Suddenly you are alone. There is no office, no private secretary, no chauffeur-driven car, no income and nothing to
Column 922
do. Is one's whole political career at an end in one day's fateful decision, and will one have to find a new occupation in life?" I understood that when a Minister ceased to be a Minister, he or she remained a Member of the House, on the salary of a Member of Parliament and with the job of a Member of Parliament to do. I agree with the Top Salaries Review Body's analysis of an MP's work, which, found that a full-time Member was on average doing 63 to 69 hours of work a week and that the work of a Member is a full-time job. It worries me that Ministers treat a full-time Member's job in such a dismissive way.Much of the debate has been concerned with outside interests. They are important, but I agree with the view already expressed in the debate that there is no reason for Members to be paid for outside interests. Indeed, many of us have outside interests and have our feet firmly on the ground in our constituencies. We feel very much involved in the life of the community but do not want pay for our outside interests.
I urge the Leader of the House to give us far more assurances about the linkage and timing of our pay decisions in his reply than he did in his opening speech. I hope that he will respond seriously to the concerns expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is wrong for the Government, in such a cavalier way, unilaterally to break the consensus on Members' pay, which has been built up over a long time.
6.59 pm
Mr. Newton : With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
On one or two occasions, I thought that the debate had become one on Members' interests rather than Members' pay. I shall not go into all the arguments that have been expressed, as some of them were fairly partisan. I am glad to say--I hope that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was aware of it--that the Select Committee on Members' Interests was reconstituted at the end of last week. I understand that it will meet next Tuesday, which should pave the way for the publication of the Register under aegis of that Committee. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome that. There has been much discussion about what some Members have termed "gesture politics". That is an unreasonable description of a policy that is concerned with some £1.5 billion of public money and is directed to maintaining priority programmes and giving capital expenditure the emphasis which hon. Members on both sides of the House rightly think it should have.
I make no apology for saying plainly, as some of my hon. Friends have done during the debate, that in circumstances in which, for reasons that I have just explained, the Government think it right to ask for pay restraint in the public sector, it would be wrong if the House were to proceed as if no difference should be made in respect of its own pay. It is not reasonable to describe the Government's proposal as gesture politics.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and others have commented on pensions. I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I remain convinced, not that he is wrong to wish to deal with the problem that he identified, but that his resolution would not be an effective or justifiable way of seeking to do it. It would be much better if he were willing to accept my offer to undertake discussions about an
Column 923
alternative way of seeking to meet that objective through additional voluntary contributions associated with the parliamentary pension scheme.May I repeat what I said in my speech in explaining why I doubted whether the amendment was an appropriate way to proceed. I said that, as the long- term position will not become clear until the House has debated and decided the longer-term linkage issues, Members would not find it easy to determine whether and to what extent they wished to take advantage of what is proposed in the amendment without some risk--I think that it is a substantial risk--of making payments from which they would derive no benefit.
I have suggested considering a system of additional voluntary contributions operating through the parliamentary pension scheme, which would not be free standing and separate from the scheme, as some hon. Members seem to have thought. It would have the advantage that any benefits that Members bought with those additional contributions would not be limited to the period of pay restraint but would bring a money sum not linked to such a period. They would therefore be better value for money and could be better tailored to a Member's individual circumstances.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe will agree to withdraw his amendment and allow us to look at what I strongly believe would be a better way to proceed. I do not dismiss the need to which he has drawn attention but suggest that we can and should seek a more satisfactory way of dealing with the need. I cannot advise the House to accept the amendment as it stands.
Mr. Alfred Morris : The Leader of the House is aware that there was detailed consultation among the trustees before the amendment was drafted and tabled in my name and theirs. We seek to ensure that the parliamentary scheme itself provides all reasonable protection that Members seek for themselves and their dependants. I emphasised in reply to the right hon. Gentleman that it will be for the individual Member to decide whether he or she wants the insurance offered by the amendment.
The Government's proposal for a system of additional voluntary contributions will also require regulations. If the Leader of the House wants that provision outside the scheme, I see no reason why he could not discuss with the trustees the possibility of making AVCs an additional provision.
I do not want to let the opportunity pass for making it certain that people who may end their service to the House next year or in 1994, through death or ill health, do not leave their dependants at a disadvantage. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the trustees gave very careful consideration to this whole matter before submitting the amendment?
Mr. Newton : I repeat what I have said in the past few minutes. I am not suggesting that it would not be right to see whether a sensible approach to that problem can be identified. However, I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman's resolution, as distinct from my suggestions about possible alternatives, will achieve effectively what he wants. Hon. Members will find it extremely difficult to make judgments in circumstances in which, to use the right hon. Gentleman's words, they are being offered the chance
Column 924
to make substantial insurance payments, which they might well get. The vast majority would get no return whatever but the money would simply disappear.I suggest the development of additional voluntary contributions, which would both meet what the right hon. Gentleman wants and ensure that hon Members would get a return for their money. I wish to make that difference between us absolutely clear.
Mr. Ashton : Will the Leader of the House offer to bring the matter back to the House and introduce a scheme which he thinks would be better than the amendment ?
Mr. Newton : It was implicit in my opening remarks, and acknowledged by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), with whom I have also spoken on the matter, that if the trustees and Members generally felt that it would be helpful to explore the possibility that I raised--the one to which I have just adverted--I should be happy to assist. I would be making that point in bad faith were I to rule out--or not rule in--doing something about it if a satisfactory arrangement could be made on the basis of those discussions.
Mr. Alfred Morris : I ask the Leader of the House to accept that this is not a moment for exploring opportunities : it is an occasion when we can provide protection that may be essential to the dependants of hon. Members. If he is giving the House, as it were, a bankable assurance that there will be provision to meet the problem that I documented in my speech, we will consider the position.
Mr. Newton : I think that I made it clear to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) that there is a better way of achieving what the right hon. Gentleman wants. I should like the opportunity to obtain the necessary further advice, discuss the issue with the trustees and then, if we can find a solution that meets the objectives of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, I shall present it to the House in the appropriate form.
Mrs. Beckett : I am closely following the argument of the Leader of the House, but I have some concern. I accept his good faith in suggesting that his proposal would be better for hon. Members. However, if I understood the position correctly, when Lady Thatcher retired, having not taken her full salary, the taxpayer made up her pension. My right hon. Friend is not suggesting that ; he is suggesting that each Member should have the right to choose. I find it hard to envisage a scheme under which it would not be better to maintain the value--the full entitlement--of the underlying pension than to adopt any conceivable system of additional voluntary contributions. I should be surprised if a case could be sustained that a better return for the same money could be obtained through additional voluntary contributions than by maintaining the basic scheme.
Mr. Newton : I think that the hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe may not have taken in my basic point in a difficult argument. The basis on which the resolution is tabled is that the House will need to return to the issue of long-term linkage with civil service pay at the end of next year. Until that longer term issue is resolved, hon. Members will be unable to judge what it is that they are seeking to protect themselves against.
Column 925
Under the right hon. Gentleman's amendment, hon. Members will be offered an opportunity to place significant sums of money--up to £200 or £300--into a scheme from which they may ultimately receive little or no benefit. I sense that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) understands what I am saying. I am talking about a defined benefit and final salary scheme in which the amount that hon. Members receive is determined by their salary in the last 12 months of their term of office.In order to deal with the problem which, I accept, could arise in the short term, and about which the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe is anxious, hon. Members will be offered the opportunity to invest significant sums of money that they may find will buy them nothing. I am arguing that a proper additional voluntary contributions system, discussed and agreed between us, would be a much better way to solve the problem and would ensure that hon. Members received a return on whatever money they invested.
Sir Jim Spicer : I do not want to prolong the debate more than a few minutes, but the trustees' anxiety is clear--that some people could fall into the trap. They may depart this life, and while discussions are taking place, their dependants will be left without additional benefit and their widows will suffer in the long term. If we can have an assurance on that key issue--the short-term period before discussions are finalised and a resolution found--I shall be happy.
Mr. Newton : In the very short term--some weeks--but not in the long term, it may be necessary to consider the role of the Members' fund in relation to certain circumstances. However, although I acknowledge the purpose of the amendment of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, I do not believe that it could achieve its purpose in a way that Members would find helpful. I sense that one or two other Opposition Members are now in agreement with me. I believe that we should find a more satisfactory way of seeking to achieve the right hon. Gentleman's objective. That is the offer that I am extending.
Mrs. Beckett : Now that I am able to follow more clearly the right hon. Gentleman's argument, I shall put it in words of one syllable. The impact of freezing salaries, possibly over a sustained period, will be so serious that, although in normal circumstances it is always true that it is better for someone to place a defined sum of money in a defined benefit scheme, in this case it might be better to use additional voluntary contributions. That is true in this case because the net loss suffered from freezing is greater than the net gain from additional voluntary contributions.
Mr. Newton : That is almost the exact opposite of what I am saying. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe is offering Members a short-term insurance policy in which the overwhelming majority of hon. Members would invest money for no return. I would rather devise a scheme into which they could place money if they wished and from which they were guaranteed a return. That is a more sensible proposition, which is why I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's amendment.
Column 926
Mr. Alfred Morris : May I take it from the Leader of the House that he is prepared to meet the managing trustees at an early date to determine the timing of the regulations required by his proposals for additional voluntary contributions?
Mr. Newton : I hope that I made it clear in the very last words of my opening speech two to three hours ago that I was suggesting meeting the managing trustees to discuss the issues. Those discussions will have to take place on the basis of seeking to identify an acceptable scheme to deal with the sort of matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman. Clearly, I would take steps to enable the House to take action on any proposal resulting from the discussions. Is that a reasonable suggestion?
The issue of the right hon. Gentleman's amendment has taken much longer than I anticipated and I sense a feeling of impatience among Members. Therefore, I shall simply repeat two crucial issues for the benefit of those hon. Members who were not able to be present when I first spoke. 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 originally passed the resolution. We have no wish to return to the position whereby the House has to decide Members' pay each and every year.
Secondly, we do not intend that Members should forgo the pay increase that civil servants have already received--3.9 per cent. for 1992 paid in August which, in normal circumstances, we would have expected to be carried through to Members' pay in January--as well as receiving no increase for the forthcoming year. I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends attach importance to the issue, and we do not intend Members to be permanently disadvantaged by 3.9 per cent. in comparison with the civil service.
I hope that, with those reservations in mind, my right hon. and hon. Friends, in the context of the overall policy for which they voted after the autumn statement, will support the Government tonight.
Amendment negatived.
Main Question put :--
The House divided : Ayes 321, Noes 103.
Division No. 93] [7.17 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Aitken, Jonathan
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Amess, David
Ancram, Michael
Arbuthnot, James
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Aspinwall, Jack
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Baldry, Tony
Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bates, Michael
Batiste, Spencer
Beggs, Roy
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Bellingham, Henry
Beresford, Sir Paul
Blackburn, Dr John G.
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Booth, Hartley
Boswell, Tim
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Bowden, Andrew
Bowis, John
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Brandreth, Gyles
Brazier, Julian
Bright, Graham
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Browning, Mrs. Angela
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Budgen, Nicholas
Burns, Simon
Burt, Alistair
Butcher, John
Butler, Peter
Butterfill, John
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)
| Next Section
| Home Page |