| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington): Why do the Government refuse to include evidence on the remuneration of peers? Many working peers find it difficult to manage; yet they do as much work as many Members of this House. Are they not being treated disgracefully?
Mr. Newton: The remuneration of working peers is a matter for the other place. There are three recommendations in the report on which I have not touched, and on which I was not planning to touch because they are for determination by the other place, but I am sure that my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal and others in another place will note the hon. Gentleman's concern.
I have explained about the linking and dating of future increases. Motion 10 relates to parliamentary pensions. As I have said, that motion will not be needed if motion 5, which would implement the full SSRB report, is passed; but if the House accepts motion 4--the 3 per cent. proposal--motion 10 will be required to signal the House's approval. That would endorse the SSRB's recommendation that the changes relating to accruals and death-in-service gratuities in the parliamentary pensions scheme for which the House voted last year should be carried through to the associated supplementary scheme for Ministers and office holders. That proposal is plainly sensible, and we recommend its acceptance. If the House agrees, implementing regulations will be required. I am currently consulting the trustees on a draft, which is available in the Vote Office.
Motions 11 and 12 concern the car mileage and office costs allowances. The Government believe that the recommended office costs allowance increase of
6 per cent., from £43,908 this year to £46,363 in 1997-98, should be accepted. Again, I make that recommendation regardless of the outcome on other issues. I am afraid that I cannot smile on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), which would go beyond the SSRB's recommendations. Although the hon. Gentleman will doubtless make his case with his usual eloquence, it is unlikely that I shall be able to advise the House to vote for the amendment.
I do not think that the position relating to the mileage allowance is as straightforward. Having noted the view that the top rate of that allowance was high in comparison with the rates provided by other schemes, but also the point that a number of Members of Parliament will have bought cars in the light of a pattern that had been established for many years, the SSRB concluded, "on balance", that it should be abolished--along with the bottom rate--and that all mileage should be reimbursed at what is currently the middle rate.
Whatever else may be said, this would undoubtedly be a radical upheaval of arrangements under which decisions about the purchase and replacement of cars, with significant financial effects, have already been made. The Government feel that, in the context of a similarly radical change in remuneration--that is, if the House votes for the SSRB recommendations on pay--the proposal should be accepted. If, however, the House votes for restraint in relation to beneficial proposals on pay, I think that it can reasonably expect similar restraint in relation to adverse changes elsewhere. Paragraph 21 of the report itself states:
Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury):
I am astonished by what the Leader of the House has said about the Government's attitude. Will he confirm that the proposals relating to the car mileage allowance are not due to take effect until April? Will he also confirm that any Member of Parliament who seeks re-election at the next general election could not, in any circumstances, receive a guarantee that the allowance would be provided after the election, because of the decision of the electorate? Why should the Government prolong the scheme beyond April, given that the election will take place in May at the latest? Surely that position is indefensible.
Mr. Newton:
I do not think so, especially in the light of what I have just said about what the report states. I am postulating circumstances in which the Government have not felt able to make a recommendation to the House--and the decision is for the House--and in which the House does not accept what the SSRB recommended across the board. The SSRB specifically said:
Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland):
The Leader of the House has just said that the decision will be a matter for the House, but he must move motion 11 for it to become a matter for the House. He said that he might not move the motion. Will he give an undertaking that,
Mr. Newton:
I said quite clearly that in those circumstances I would not expect to move motion 11, and I will not depart from that.
Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South):
No doubt the Leader of the House has noticed that motion 11 carries my name as well as his. If he does not move it, I shall.
Mr. Newton:
I had indeed noticed, and that thought had occurred to me. Although it does not alter what I have said, it will no doubt encourage the Liberal Democrats.
Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North):
As my right hon. Friend and the House will know, I have some commercial interest in the matter. I declare that interest now.
If the 74p mileage allowance is removed almost immediately, or within 12 months, that will cause great distress and financial hardship to many right hon. and hon. Members who have legitimately purchased cars on the basis of that allowance. The blackmail tactic of balancing one motion against another is unacceptable. I plead with my right hon. Friend to extend the period to at least two or three years to accommodate Members of Parliament who have bought cars recently on the basis of that allowance.
Mr. Newton:
My hon. Friend has made a number of points that others may wish to weigh when considering what I said a few moments ago. I must tell him, however, that on the question of whether motion 11 should be moved in the context of the House's acceptance of motion 5--which supports the full SSRB package--the Government made it clear that the House would be able to make decisions on the SSRB report as a whole. In those circumstances, it would not be right for me to decline to move motion 11. It is reasonable for me to do so in the context of the much more limited proposals that the Government prefer, but it would be inconsistent with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week about enabling the House to make decisions on the SSRB package as a whole.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield):
What worries me is that the committee apparently took no real evidence from those who know about the cost of maintaining a vehicle. I wonder whether my hon. Friend has seen the illustrative vehicle running costs issued by the Royal Automobile Club last November. Is it not obscene, immoral and wrong for people who have cars with low running costs to be able to claim an allowance that will make them a huge profit, while people living many miles from London who need a more comfortable car in which to travel long distances will be subsidising their parliamentary and constituency work mileage?
Mr. Newton:
I am well aware that my hon. Friend--along with, for all I know, other hon. Members on both sides of the House--feels strongly about the matter. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will probably want to develop his points further. I have already made it
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster):
I live a great deal further from London than my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and I find that I can do the journey comfortably in a middle-grade car. I reach my destination safely, without breaking the speed limit.
Mr. Newton:
My hon. Friend makes a somewhat different point and I am bound to say that I do not particularly want to get caught in the crossfire between Lancashire and Cheshire.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire):
Does my right hon. Friend accept that what he is proposing tonight is the perpetuation of a fudge? It is far better to accept the whole package, the good and the bad--and I speak as one who does have a large car and a long distance to travel--than to fudge it and to go on and on, as we have year after year, in a wholly undesirable way.
Mr. Newton:
Again, my hon. Friend makes a point that will be shared by others and no doubt made in the debate. The Government have provided the House with the opportunity, as they said that they would, to take that decision if it wishes, but the Government cannot escape the responsibility of giving the House advice. That is what I have been seeking to do.
"The primary recommendations in this report are designed as an integrated package."
Accordingly, if--as I hope--the House accepts motion 4, I do not intend to move motion 11.
"The primary recommendations in this report are designed as an integrated package."
What I have said reflects the position accurately. It is a proper, balanced approach.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |