House of Commons Hansard Debates for 13 Jul 1994

The First Deputy Chairman : Order. As is not uncommon, the hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the new clause. Will he get back to it ?

Mr. Marlow : I have nearly come to the end of my remarks, Mr. Lofthouse.

I am saying that the Prime Minister, by bringing forward the report, could make his position with regard to monetary union crystal clear to the country. It is not a convenience for commerce or a bonanza for business. It means--these are items that could be set out in the report--a massive transfer of funds from the United Kingdom to the southern European countries. It means single interest rates and a single economy. It means harmonisation and a high rate of taxes. It means a single bank and it means inevitably that instead of being a nation state, instead of being the United Kingdom, we should become a mere province of a single, centralised European state. The decision making would be not closer but further from the people. There would be an expensive rain dance of an unrepresentative and unaccountable Government--the witch doctors of the European elite. That would bring forward a storm of resentment and ungovernability which would wash away not only the Treasury's policy and the

Column 1102

agricultural policy, which would be reported on, but some of the aspects of European co-operation of which we are all in favour. It could be said in the report that the British people cannot afford European monetary union and do not want European monetary union. From his statements, it is clear that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not want European monetary union. If the heart and mind of the Prime Minister and the hearts and minds of the people of the United Kingdom take the same view on this vital issue of policy--this vital issue of identity--does it do any harm for the Prime Minister to make that clear now ? Does it do any harm for him to say, "I will never accept the single currency and I will never accept the single European state" ? The two are a distinction without a difference.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory : I want to be helpful to my hon. Friends because I think that the provision of information to the House is important. National Parliaments should be more involved in European legislation and developments in Europe than they have been. However, the information sought in the new clause is generally available in other ways. During the passage of the Bill, we have tried to set out the implications of accession--in documentary form as well. On 29 March, we sent to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs a fairly detailed account of the negotiations at that point.

In addition, my hon. Friends have overlooked the elaborate scrutiny system that already exists in the House. All important documents coming from the European institutions are deposited with the Select Committee on European Legislation and are available for scrutiny and debate. Indeed, I gave evidence to that Committee yesterday. Developments in the European Union are reported in six-monthly White Papers and Ministers frequently make statements on their return from Council meetings.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) in particular mentioned finance. It is true that the EC budget will have to be adjusted to take account of the states that accede, but that, too, will be the subject of scrutiny and debate. The documents will be deposited in the normal way, I hope before the end of this year.

Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud) : Is my hon. Friend aware of the sheer scale of this ? The EU proposes to provide 200 million ecu in the first year for Norway alone. It is estimated that the cost of agricultural support is 2 billion ecu. Where is that extra 1.8 billion ecu to be found ?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : As has frequently been made clear, agricultural support in the four countries is extremely high. One of the advantages of bringing the countries into the European Union is that it will reduce the degree of agricultural protection in Europe. Bringing them into the Union will be a net gain in terms of the reduction in agricultural protection. The overall flow of funds is to our advantage. I repeat the point that, although the common agricultural policy will remain expensive in those states, they are more than paying their own way--not only in the long term, but even during the transitional period before their systems align fully with existing policies.

The point on which I must end is that we should not legislate unless we absolutely have to. That is the principle, after all, which underlies our deregulation efforts. Given

Column 1103

that all the information will be made available under normal proceedings, I must invite the Committee to reject the new clause. Question put and negatived.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

11.15 pm

Mr. Spearing : The Committee was surprised that the Government Front -Bench spokesmen, or one part of their team, took steps to prevent the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) from contributing to an earlier debate. However, with his characteristic ingenuity and his knowledge of the rules of the House, he was able to speak.

On Third Reading, the Bill being about the Community and accession to it, I, too, would like to use the opportunity that the Standing Orders provide to make some brief remarks. The Bill is to permit the applicants, if they so wish, to join the Community--this Union which prides itself on its democratic tradition and its democratic opportunity, but which nevertheless is at something of a turning point due to the increasing dominance of one of its member states. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) referred a short time ago to what happened in Europe 50 years ago. Through the sacrifice of his father 50 years ago today, people like myself were spared the attacks of certain weapons in London. Those of us who survived that period were determined that after that war Europe would be a place where such a war could not happen again.

The Bill and the Community that we are offering to our Scandinavian neighbours is founded on treaties which cannot--and, I fear, will not-- provide that sense of security, of democracy, of co-operation that we all sought 50 years ago. The reason is that, instead of encouraging co- operation, the Community's treaties encourage competition. Instead of going about things in an open way, they encourage package bargaining and secret negotiation. That is why our friends in Germany, in seeking to keep the freedom of their lands, are advocating a federal structure which some Conservative Members and others in this country rightly fear so much.

In other words, the Bill will enable our Scandinavian neighbours, if they so wish, to accede to a Community whose constitution and whose treaties are flawed because they do not serve the purposes for which they are advertised and cannot bear the fruit for which they are constantly praised and, one hopes, expected to produce. I do not think that they can achieve those objectives.

The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North, myself and others have not thought this because of antagonism towards our friends in Europe. It is the opposite of that. We want to ensure that friendship is founded on real democracy, real freedom and real open government, but we fear that these treaties will not ensure that. I hope that our Scandinavian friends, having been given the opportunity to choose whether to stand aside and to co- operate outside the

Column 1104

alleged Community and the alleged Union, will opt to do so. It will be to their advantage and to the advantage of all countries in Europe if they choose not to accede at this stage. It will also be to the advantage of the House, the quality of politics in this land and the citizens of the United Kingdom.

11.20 pm

Mr. Marlow : I shall be incredibly brief. We are in favour, apparently, of bringing these countries into the European Community because Europe is moving our way, because they will agree with us and because they will help us to move Europe our way. Apparently they will help us to reform the institutions of Europe.

I have a suggestion for the Government. Money is power, and the less money the institutions of the European Community have, the less power they have-- so do not bring forward the European Community finance Bill. Our finances have changed and Europe's finances have changed. There is massive fraud. We know that £300 million is being wasted on the European Parliament. We are taxing our elderly people to pay for their heating and we cannot afford it. Let us cut off the supply of money and add that to the alliance that we shall have with the four new countries of the European Community. Let us beat some sense into the heads of the bureaucrats of Brussels.

11.21 pm

Ms Quin : On Second Reading, the Opposition warmly welcomed the Bill and the accession treaty. Today's debates have not changed our minds. There have been many contributions and it seems that, especially among Conservative Members, the penny has dropped. There seems to be an understanding that the countries joining the European Union have European policies and domestic policies which have a great deal in common with Labour and rather less in common with the Government's views. That makes us, the Opposition, even keener about enlargement.

The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said that we risk not always taking the peoples of Europe with us in many of the matters that are discussed in the European Union and decided upon. He talked of the danger of a democratic gap between the European institutions and the people. It is important for us to demystify Europe and to make it relevant. We believe that the four new countries will help us to do that. Their commitment to open government--as a reality and not just rhetoric--is welcome. The four applicant countries will bring considerable economic, social and environmental assets to the European Union, and they will help to make it more democratic. We welcome that, and we welcome them. We are pleased that the Bill is having its Third Reading. 11.22 pm

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Column 1105

Members' Allowances

11.23 pm

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

That, in the opinion of this House, the following provisions should have effect

Part A. Office costs allowance

(1) The limit on the office costs allowance

(a) for any quarter in the year beginning with 1st April 1994, should be the amount obtained by increasing the limit for a quarter in the immediately preceding year by 2.3 per cent ; and

(b) for any quarter in any subsequent year, should be the amount obtained by increasing the limit for a quarter in the immediately preceding year by the percentage by which the retail prices index for March in that immediately preceding year has increased compared with the retail prices index for the previous March.

(2) The limit on the office costs allowance in relation to Mr. David Blunkett should be 2.57 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (1) of this Part of this Resolution.

(3) Any limit determined in accordance with this Part of this Resolution should be calculated to the nearest pound.

(4) In this Part of this Resolution

"quarter" means a period of three months beginning with 1st April, 1st July, 1st October or 1st January ;

"year" means a period of twelve months beginning with 1st April. (5) The references in paragraph (1)(b) of this Part of this Resolution to the retail prices index are references to the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Central Statistical Office ; but if that index is not published for a month which is relevant for the purposes of this Part of this Resolution, those references in that paragraph shall be construed as references to any index or index figure published in place of that index. Part B. Supplementary London allowance

(1) The annual rate of the supplementary London allowance (a) for the period of three months beginning with 1st January 1994, should be the amount obtained by increasing the annual rate at which the allowance was paid immediately before that period by 1.5 per cent ;

(b) for the year beginning with 1st April 1994, should be the amount obtained by increasing the annual rate determined in accordance with sub- paragraph (a) of this paragraph by 0.4 per cent ; and

(c) for any subsequent year, should be the amount obtained by increasing the rate for the immediately preceding year by the percentage by which the retail prices index for March in that immediately preceding year has increased compared with the retail prices index for the previous March.

(2) Any rate determined in accordance with this Part of this Resolution should be calculated to the nearest pound.

(3) In this Part of this Resolution

"the supplementary London allowance" means the allowance payable in accordance with paragraph (1) of the Resolution of 20th December 1971 relating to Parliamentary expenses ;

"year" means a period of twelve months beginning with 1st April. (4) The references in paragraph (1)(c) of this Part of this Resolution to the retail prices index are references to the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Central Statistical Office ; but if that index is not published for a month which is relevant for the purposes of this Part of this Resolution, those references in that paragraph shall be construed as references to any index or index figure published in place of that index. Part C. Additional costs allowance

(1) The annual limit on the additional costs allowance

(a) for the year beginning with 1st April 1993, should be the amount obtained by increasing the relevant limit by 1 per cent ; (b) for the year beginning with 1st April 1994, should be the amount obtained by increasing the annual limit determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph by 1.81 per cent ; and

Column 1106

(c) for any subsequent year, should be the amount obtained by increasing the limit for the immediately preceding year by the percentage by which the retail prices index for March in that immediately preceding year has increased compared with the retail prices index for the previous March.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a) of this Part of this Resolution the relevant limit is the amount equal to 144 times the Class A(i) London rate for a night's subsistence which took effect in the Civil Service on 1st August 1992.

(3) Any limit determined in accordance with this Part of this Resolution should be calculated to the nearest pound.

(4) In this Part of this Resolution

"the additional costs allowance" means the allowance payable in accordance with paragraph (2) of the Resolution of 20th December 1971 relating to Parliamentary expenses ;

"year" means a period of twelve months beginning with 1st April. (5) The references in paragraph (1)(c) of this Part of this Resolution to the retail prices index are references to the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Central Statistical Office ; but if that index is not published for a month which is relevant for the purposes of this Part of this Resolution, those references in that paragraph shall be construed as references to any index or index figure published in place of that index. Part D. Car mileage allowance

(1) Paragraph (1) of the Resolution of 20th July 1984 relating to the car mileage allowance should have effect

(a) in relation to journeys commenced in the year beginning with 1st April 1994, as if the rates per mile shown in the Table were the rates obtained by increasing each of the rates at which the allowance was previously paid by 2.3 per cent ; and

(b) in relation to journeys commenced in any subsequent year, as if the rates per mile shown in the Table were the rates obtained by increasing each of the rates for the immediately preceding year by the percentage by which the retail prices index for March in that immediately preceding year has increased compared with the retail prices index for the previous March.

(2) Any rate per mile determined in accordance with this Part of this Resolution should be calculated to the nearest tenth of a penny.

(3) In this Part of this Resolution "year" means a period of twelve months beginning with 1st April.

(4) The references in paragraph (1)(b) of this Part of this Resolution to the retail prices index are references to the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Central Statistical Office ; but if that index is not published for a month which is relevant for the purposes of this Part of this Resolution, those references in that paragraph shall be construed as references to any index or index figure published in place of that index. Part E. Winding-up allowance

(1) The following provisions of this Part of this Resolution should have effect with respect to Members of this House who cease to be Members after 31st March 1994.

(2) Provision should be made under arrangements approved by the Speaker for an allowance to be made in respect of the expenses which, after a person has ceased to be a Member, are still required to be incurred in connection with his Parliamentary duties.

(3) The limit on that allowance should be four-thirds of the amount which, for the year in which that person ceases to be a Member, is the limit for that Member on the office costs allowance for a quarter in that year.

(4) The allowance should be paid to the person who has ceased to be a Member or, if he has died, to his personal representatives or a person nominated by him or selected under the arrangements approved by the Speaker.

(5) Any limit determined in accordance with this Part of this Resolution should be calculated to the nearest pound.

(6) In this Part of this Resolution

"quarter" means a period of three months beginning with 1st April, 1st July, 1st October or 1st January ;

"year" means a period of twelve months beginning with 1st April.

Column 1107

Part F. Recall of House during a recess

(1) The following provisions of this Part of this Resolution should have effect with respect to any occasion on which, during a recess, this House is recalled before the expected end of the recess. (2) Members who attend the House during the recall should be reimbursed in respect of such extra costs which are wholly and exclusively attributable to the recall as are necessarily incurred by them in connection with travelling

(a) from any place to London ; and

(b) during any further recess immediately following the recall, from London to any place (provided that the purpose is to fulfil, before the expected end of that further recess, plans which were in existence before the recall).

(3) For the purposes of this part of this Resolution

(a) "recess" means not only a period when Parliament stands prorogued to a specified date but also any period when this House stands adjourned to a specified date, and the references to the expected end of a recess are references to that specified date ; (b) "reimbursement", in the case of a Member, means the payment to the Member of the amount of the extra costs concerned and the payment to the Inland Revenue, on account of the income tax liability of the Member, of the difference between that amount and such a sum as, after deduction of tax at the marginal rate applicable to the Member, is equal to that amount ; and

(c) "extra costs", in the case of a Member means costs in respect of which the Member cannot be reimbursed otherwise than by virtue of this Part of this Resolution.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : I inform the House that Madam Speaker has not selected the amendment.

Mr. Newton : In case anticipation has been aroused by the length and apparent weight of the motion, I should say at the outset that it represents no major or strategic change. I hope, conversely, that it does not create too much disappointment, either.

The first four parts of the motion replace uprating mechanisms that for various reasons have ceased to work with one that does work and can be expected to continue to work.

The fifth part meets a problem that has arisen because of the greater contractual commitments that Members these days are finding it necessary to enter into. It is merely designed to ensure that those commitments can be met if a Member dies or ceases to be a Member for any other reason.

The sixth part corrects an anomaly which has hitherto meant that, if Parliament is recalled during a recess, Ministers can receive help with the expenses incurred but Members cannot. I hasten to add that the correction takes the form of extending help to Members and not taking it away from Ministers.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : Will Members be reimbursed retrospectively for being called back ? I was called back from Australia just over a year ago. That was hugely expensive.

Mr. Newton : I am afraid that it is not retrospective, and I cannot hold out hopes of anything other than sympathy to the hon. Gentleman this evening.

I will deal first briefly with the four existing allowances uprating mechanisms that have failed. The main one is, of course, the office costs allowance. That was formerly increased with effect from each April by reference to the pay of senior secretaries in the civil service. However, in the same way as the move to new civil service pay

Column 1108

arrangements broke the old automatic linkage for Members' pay, which we replaced last year, so this one too is breaking down and needs to be replaced.

The additional costs allowance, to help with the problem of Members needing accommodation in two locations, was formerly uprated in August by reference to civil service overnight subsistence rates. With greater delegation to individual Departments, that too has ceased to be viable.

The position in regard to its near relation, the London supplement, is a little more complicated. Essentially, however, it is that it used to be linked to the inner London weighting paid to civil servants. That is being replaced by a recruitment and retention allowance paid at the discretion of individual Departments--which, once again, makes it unusable as an uprating mechanism.

Lastly, the motor mileage allowance used to be tied, in a very specific and detailed way, to a schedule of motoring costs which is no longer available in a form which can be operated within the terms of the underlying resolution of the House. Here too, therefore, we need a new uprating mechanism.

Against that background, we spent some time considering the possibility of devising what might be called fancy new mechanisms which could be presented as in some way cleverly and specifically related to each of those different purposes. We concluded that all of them would be vulnerable to endless argument, and probably in due course once again be overtaken by change comparable with what has caused the present problem.

We therefore decided that far and away the simplest, most straightforward and most sensible solution was to link them all to the retail prices index. That also has what I, and I suspect the House, regard as the inestimable advantage of being the most durable solution--that is, the one most likely to remain workable on an automatic basis, and thus to avoid the need for the House to have to keep passing new resolutions.

That is what the first four parts of this resolution do : they provide for all four allowances to be uprated with effect from April 1994 by reference to the RPI, and henceforth to be uprated with effect from each succeeding April by reference to the RPI. The only reason for the slight variation in the actual percentage increases from April 1994 is that we have also taken the opportunity to make another sensible simplification, which is to end the variations of uprating date and to put everything on to an April to March basis.

Thus, the office costs and motor mileage allowances rise by 2.3 per cent., which is the RPI increase from April 1993 to April 1994. The London supplement rises by 1.9 per cent., which represents 1.5 per cent. due from January 1994 in respect of an earlier increase in the civil service inner London weighting, plus 0.4 per cent. for the RPI increase in the three months from January. The additional costs allowance rises by a little more- -2.8 per cent.--but only, I emphasise, because that relates not to 12 months but to a 20-month period since its last uprating in August 1992.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) : I should like my right hon. Friend to clarify a point relating to the office costs allowance with particular reference to the amount that we pay our secretaries or research assistants. In essence, is the increase being limited to 2.3 per cent. ? If that is the case, it is lower than the increase being granted to the civil service, and that would be very unfair to our

Column 1109

secretaries, who do a great deal of work and who often have to work very long hours. Is my understanding correct ?

Mr. Newton : I have explained, I hope fairly clearly--although I am moving fairly rapidly because I sense that it is probably the wish of the House that I should do that--that we have used the RPI as the most sensible and straightforward mechanism.

The office costs allowance, which was substantially increased a couple of years ago, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will recall, embraces several other costs, such as equipment costs and others, which are not salary costs these days and which hon. Members meet. I judge that that mechanism remains the most sensible solution overall.

Sir Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare) : My right hon. Friend based his argument about the increase in the allowances on the basis that they were originally fair. However, the additional London living allowance is based on the average number of sittings days of the House multiplied by the allowance given to a civil servant for one night in London.

How is it possible for any hon. Member to rent a flat or have any living accommodation on the basis of such a calculation ? Is my right hon. Friend seriously suggesting that there was any fairness in that calculation in the first place ? Will he confirm that all the allowances are paid against proven costs, as costs, to hon. Members, and there is no question of them being a benefit ?

Next Section

Home Page