| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.28 pm
Mrs. Ray Michie: I welcome the Bill's Third Reading. It has been a long time in the making.
Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I shall be brief; I understand that another subject is coming up that appears to be distracting many hon. Members.
There is a real issue at stake and it is not just about killing Bambi. The stag at bay is a great concept and tourist attraction in Scotland, but behind that superficially dramatic sight lies a sorrier tale of serious environmental problems because of the deer population and the consequential detrimental effect on the economy. That has all been for the short-term advantage of those trying to attract game hunters.
The Scottish National party could have made its case in Committee if it wished, but its Members always jump into Committee, sit for two minutes to get their press and then walk out. "Hard work" is not a phrase that is in their vocabulary.
I wish the Bill success. Its purpose is the sensible management of deer in Scotland. Five years of hard negotiations went into the Bill, involving many interest groups. Not everyone got what they wished. That is why a number of groups in the highlands and islands are very bitter about the Government's acceptance of the amendments in the House of Lords.
I should like to correct the Minister's statement about the chairman of the Red Deer Commission, Patrick Gordon-Duff-Pennington. I spoke to him, and he was not sympathetic to the Government's proposals. He tries as best he can to work with all interests in the highlands and islands and elsewhere. The Labour party is firmly behind him on that issue.
I remind hon. Members that the amendment was moved by Lord Pearson of Rannoch in the debate in the other place on 4 December 1995. He suggested that Scotland appears to be an uncertain place politically at the moment. He said that we must reluctantly consider what a Secretary of State sympathetic to the wilder elements could do with the Bill.
Scotland is not an uncertain place at the moment. The Conservative party is down to single figures in the opinion polls. There will certainly be a Labour Government, and we shall take a consensual approach. The Labour party will consider the wider elements and ensure that the legislation is progressive and sensible. I wish the Bill well.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris):
Before I call the Leader of the House, I must make three announcements. Madam Speaker has ruled that all Back-Bench speeches shall be limited to 10 minutes. All amendments are open for debate, and since the list of hon. Members wishing to contribute is long I remind them that the debate is restricted to three hours and ask them to show some restraint within that limit.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton):
I beg to move,
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to consider the following: motion 5--Parliamentary Pay and Allowances:
Motion 6--Members' Salaries (No. 1):
Motion 7--Members Salaries (No. 2):
Motions 8 and 9--Parliament:
Motion 12--Office Costs Allowance:
Mr. Newton:
In view of the many motions and amendments on the Order Paper, I hope that it will be thought sensible if I begin by setting out the structure as clearly and as briefly as I can.
Essentially, what we have done is to reflect as straightforwardly as possible what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his written answer last Thursday--that we would enable the House to decide whether to endorse the Government's advice that pay increases should be restrained to 3 per cent., or whether to endorse the increases proposed in the Senior Salaries Review Body's report. Those propositions are motions 4 and 5 respectively. Both are expressions of opinion that are freely amendable but do not have direct effect. Thus, the following four motions are the matching substantive resolutions to give practical effect to whatever the House decides. Motions 6 and 8 would implement 3 per cent. for Members and Ministers respectively; motions 7 and 9 would implement the full SSRB pay recommendations for Members and Ministers respectively.
The remaining three motions concern three SSRB recommendations which do not relate to pay as such. Motion 10, which would not be needed if motion 5 were carried, is concerned with parliamentary pensions. Motions 11 and 12 enable the House to agree, if it wishes, the detailed implementation of the SSRB proposals on motor mileage allowance and the office costs allowance respectively. I shall return to those motions later.
The main issue--but certainly not the only one--is clearly the choice between the restraint that the Government urge and the much larger increases proposed in the SSRB report. Before I turn to that, it may help the House if I say something about some of the SSRB recommendations which have, in some cases, attracted rather less attention but which nevertheless are not insignificant.
First, I refer, but only in passing, to the five recommendations described as "development recommendations"--possibilities on which the review body did not make firm recommendations but on which it wished to do further work. These concern pay relativities between Whips and Parliamentary Secretaries and Lords and Commons Ministers below Cabinet level, and suggestions--for the House particularly--about additional pay for certain Members such as Select Committee Chairmen, increased central provision of office equipment and an "exceptional needs" allowance for certain constituencies related to some measurement of work load.
There is plenty of scope for argument about some or all of those, but it is not an argument that we need to carry to a conclusion today, although the Government and the SSRB will obviously wish to take account of anything said in the House today in considering how any such work might best be carried forward.
Secondly, there are a number of recommendations which simply reaffirm the status quo: for example, on the additional costs allowance, the London supplement and the arrangement by which Members who are also Members of the European Parliament continue to receive one third of a Member's salary in respect of their second job--the so-called duality rate. Although none of these requires action by the House, I should make it clear that the Government accept them.
Thirdly, there is a recommendation which will in due course require a resolution by the House but on which further work will plainly be needed before such a resolution can be framed. This is the proposal for an ill-health retirement grant--the introduction, for those whose health makes it undesirable for them to continue to
the end of a Parliament, of the equivalent of the resettlement grant for those who leave at the time of an election. Regardless of the outcome on the main issue tonight--I am looking around for the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who has tabled an amendment on this--the Government believe that this recommendation should be accepted in principle and the necessary work on detail put in hand. Thus, should it be necessary to move motion 10, and should the hon. Member for Cynon Valley wish to press her amendment, I would be very happy to accept it. It is exactly in line with what I have just said.
8.32 pm
That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House--
(1) In respect of service in the period starting with 1st July 1996 and ending with 31st March 1997 the yearly rates of salaries payable to Members in accordance with the Resolution of this House of 3rd November 1993 should be increased by three per cent.
(2) For each year starting with 1st April, from 1997 onwards, the yearly rates should be increased by the average percentage by which the mid-points of the Senior Civil Service pay bands having effect from 1st April of that year have increased compared with the previous 1st April.
(3) The mid-point of a Senior Civil Service pay band is the point half way between the maximum and the minimum.
That this House takes note of the Review Body on Senior Salaries' Report on Parliamentary pay and allowances presented to Parliament on 4th July (Command Paper 3330), and calls on the Government to take any necessary action to enable implementation of the recommendations.
That the following provision shall be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House--
(1) In respect of service in the period starting with 1st July 1996 and ending with 31st March 1997 the yearly rates of salaries payable to Members in accordance with the Resolution of this House of 3rd November 1993 shall be increased by three per cent.
(2) For each year starting with 1st April, from 1997 onwards, the yearly rates shall be increased by the average percentage by which the mid-points of the Senior Civil Service pay bands having effect from 1st April of that year have increased compared with the previous 1st April.
(3) The mid-point of a Senior Civil Service pay band is the point half way between the maximum and the minimum.
That the following provision shall be made with respect to the salaries of Members of this House--
(1) In respect of service in the period starting with 1st July 1996 and ending with 31st March 1997 the salary of a Member shall be at a yearly rate of £43,000.
(2) For each year starting with 1st April, from 1997 onwards, the yearly rate shall be increased by the average percentage by which the mid-points of the Senior Civil Service pay bands having effect from 1st April of that year have increased compared with the previous 1st April.
(3) The mid-point of a Senior Civil Service pay band is the point half way between the maximum and the minimum.
That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1996 (No. 1), which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.
10 Jul 1996 : Column 489
Motion 10--Parliamentary Pensions:
That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1996 (No. 2), which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.
That this House takes note of, and calls on the Government to implement. Recommendation 16 of the Review Body on Senior Salaries' Report on Parliamentary Pay and Allowances presented to Parliament on 4th July (Command Paper 3330) (supplementary scheme for Ministers and other paid office holders).
Motion 11--Car Mileage Allowance:
That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the rates of the car mileage allowance payable to Members in respect of journeys--
(a) by Members, or
(b) by spouses or persons in respect of whom the secretarial and research allowance is payable--
(1) In respect of journeys commenced in the year starting with 1st April 1997, the allowance shall be payable to any Member at the higher rate up to a total of 20,000 miles and at the lower rate thereafter.
(2) The higher rate is 47.2 pence per mile increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for March 1997 has increased compared with the index for March 1996.
(3) The lower rate is 21.7 pence per mile increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for March 1997 has increased compared with the index for March 1996.
(4) For each subsequent year starting with 1st April, the rates shall be increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for the previous March has increased compared with the index for the March before that.
(5) The rates shall be calculated to the nearest tenth of a penny (with exactly one twentieth being rounded up).
(6) Arrangements shall be made by the Fees Office for ensuring that claims are supported by appropriate particulars.
(7) In this Resolution "the retail price index" means the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Office for National Statistics (or any index or figures published by that Office in place of that index).
That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision should be made with respect to the limit on the Office Costs Allowance--
(1) The limit for any quarter in the year starting with 1st April 1997 should be £11,591 increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for March 1997 has increased compared with the index for March 1996.
(2) For any quarter in each subsequent year starting with 1st April the limit should be the limit for a quarter in the previous year increased by the percentage (if any) by which the retail prices index for the previous March has increased compared with the index for the March before that.
(3) The limit in relation to Mr. David Blunkett should be 2.57 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2).
(4) The limit in relation to Mr. Bernie Grant should be 1.33 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2).
(5) The limit should be calculated to the nearest pound (with exactly 50 pence being rounded up).
(6) In this Resolution--
(a) "quarter" means a period of three months starting with 1st April, 1st July, 1st October or 1st January; and
(b) "the retail prices index" means the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Office for National Statistics (or any index or figures published by that Office in place of that index).
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |