| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale): Does the Leader of the House agree that one of the most important sentences in the report is in paragraph 36? The review body states:
- "Had the TSRB recommendation of £19,000 per annum been accepted in 1983 and subsequently uprated by the percentage factors which were actually applied each year, it would have produced a Parliamentary salary of £42,300 today, as compared with the current £34,085."
Mr. Newton: The right hon. Gentleman obviously feels strongly on this subject. I note that, and I read with interest that sentence in the report. However, I do not think that it can absolve the Government from making a judgment about the advice to offer in today's circumstances.
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Newton: I will give way for the last time.
Mr. Miller: If the Government have a view about what is acceptable in terms of overall pay in the current climate, what evidence did they present to the pay review body on that?
Mr. Newton: We gave evidence on these matters in relation to what is sometimes known as affordability and
it was very much in line with the evidence that we gave to other pay review bodies last September, but updated. [Interruption.] The review body does not publish any of the evidence that is given to it other than that which it has commissioned from management consultants and other such people. For example, it would not have published what the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said to it or wrote to it or, indeed, such evidence from anybody else.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the SSRB had evidence from the Government on affordability before it came to its conclusions and decided on its package?
Mr. Newton: The Government put written evidence to the SSRB. We submitted the same evidence for that review as we submitted to all other pay review bodies last September. The only difference was that this year's evidence was slightly updated.
Mr. Miller: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I asked the Leader of the House a perfectly reasonable question. The list containing the names of those who gave evidence to the review body contains the name of my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House and other hon. Members, but it does not contain the name of anyone in the Government. May we be clear about precisely who gave evidence?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): That is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Newton: Evidence was given by, for example, the Lord Privy Seal. As I have said, the Government put in a written statement of evidence on affordability.
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North): Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Newton: No, I shall not give way again.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington): I am afraid that the House is not looking its most elegant and best. It is perceived outside as in an ugly mood on these matters. We are being portrayed as a bunch of Dickensian money-grubbers, and the very credibility of Parliament will be at stake if we must regularly go through this type of debate.
The problem appears to be a very simple one, because we all know that we have a case for a substantial pay increase. As we all know, the reality is that when we compare our roles with those of others in our communities--with those in the fire service and police
service, in local authorities or in the education services--we find that we are not paid realistically or reasonably in comparison with their rates.
The problem is that the public are not prepared to stomach our case, and the reason for that is to be found in the background debate before the setting up of the Nolan committee. The truth is that the public want to see Members of Parliament conducting themselves a little better before they are prepared to stomach such a major increase. Therefore, my strategy is to block the £43,000, because I think that it is wrong.
We have two ways in which to block the £43,000. We can vote for the Government's motion--motion 4. Alternatively, I have tabled an amendment that would effectively block the £43,000 by introducing it in a three-phase process over three consecutive years. In tabling that amendment, I was conscious of the real reason why many hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, are pressing for the proposals of the Senior Salaries Review Body.
I have discussed the matter with many of my colleagues, and the first reason why they are pressing for the proposals is that they are totally dissatisfied with the arrangements for office costs. The reality is that, through the Fees Office, many hon. Members--I do not do it, because in principle I have decided that I am not prepared to do it--transfer funds from their salary to their secretarial allowance to compensate for the inadequate funding of their offices.
We know from reports in the newspapers even this morning that some researchers and secretaries are still not properly remunerated and that offices are still underfunded. In some cases, hon. Members are providing office accommodation free for their constituents because they do not believe that it is possible to claim enough under their current allowances.
Secondly, many hon. Members are motivated by the difficulties that they know hon. Members have when they leave the House to retire. This morning, I was speaking to a Member of the other place who had spent many years in the House of Commons. He was a senior hon. Member when he left. He told me that his pension is £180 a month, and that, in a recent period of illness, he found that he had to attend the other place because he could not survive on his pension. I really do not think that that is the way to run a modern Parliament. Our constitutional arrangements--if they are constitutional arrangements--surely must be changed to secure the financial viability of pensioners leaving this place on retirement.
The SSRB certainly failed on the first count. Therefore, as I said, my amendment would give hon. Members the opportunity to secure the £43,000 objective over three consecutive years. In the interim period--while the SSRB is still reviewing secretarial costs--my amendment would give hon. Members the opportunity to transfer moneys to their secretarial allowances to see them through the period before us.
The fifth paragraph of my amendment sets a notional £43,000 for pension purposes. The precedent for that is to be found in the 1975 resolution on the proceedings of the House when pay and pensions were dealt with.
Sir Timothy Sainsbury (Hove):
I hope that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will excuse my not commenting in detail on his amendment. My view on expenses is that they should fully cover the costs that hon. Members have to incur, but should not be expected to produce a profit and should be properly monitored.
Before I became a Member of Parliament, I was the executive director of a major company, and about a year after I retired from Government, I rejoined the board of that company as a non-executive director. As most hon. Members will know, it is now one of the largest public companies in the country. I am a member of the remuneration committee of that public company.
I recognise straight away that the public service differs from the wealth-creating private sector, but I suggest that the difference in many cases is in there being fewer obvious measures of performance for those in the public sector than for those in the private sector. It is more that difference than any difference in the nature of the tasks and responsibilities.
The remuneration committee of a public limited company advises the board on the pay of executive directors. The objective of a remuneration committee is quite clear; it is to attract, retain and motivate people of the highest calibre to fulfil the duties. I emphasise the words "attract" and "retain". The annual report of the company to which I am referring also makes it clear that, in carrying out its responsibilities, the remuneration committee has regard to comparable salaries and remuneration packages in comparable companies outside the one under consideration.
The review body has been given a similar task in respect of hon. Members and Ministers. It has used similar methods. It has looked carefully at a wide range of comparables--I know that they cannot be exact--and anyone who has read the report would agree that those comparables have some relevance.
I hope that the review body had similar objectives to the remuneration committee of which I am a member, which is to attract and retain men and women of the highest calibre who will offer themselves for election to the House and be prepared to serve as Ministers of the Crown. Surely we can all agree that that is a sensible objective.
I believe that the review body's recommendations would enable us to attract and retain Members of Parliament and Ministers of ability. In my view, it has done a first-class job, and a reading of the report bears that out. It has covered the ground fully and its members are extremely experienced people who deserve the congratulations of the House and of the country on their work. I submit that it is in the interests of future Parliaments and future Governments that we should accept and implement the recommendations in their entirety straight away.
The review body's task was easier in respect of ministerial salaries than for the salaries of hon. Members, because it is easier to evaluate the job and to find comparable jobs in the outside world. I know that it will be of interest, particularly to Opposition Members, to know that ministerial jobs are full time and, as some of my right hon. and hon. Friends know, they are very full time.
It struck me, as it may have struck other hon. Members, that the report notes that many hon. Members suggested that improving ministerial pay is a higher priority than increasing their own. That was most commendable. Indeed, I am not aware that any serious commentator does not accept the need for a substantial increase in ministerial pay. There is no need for a detailed argument, as many hon. Members want to speak. The facts and figures are all in the report.
I remind the House, however, that one of the inevitable consequences of failure to make the increase will be that the House will not be able to attract and retain sufficient hon. Members of sufficient ability who are prepared to serve as Ministers. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) has pointed out the consequences of having put off making a decision on this issue.
I shall make two final points. First, we frequently hear the old story that there is no need for an increase because there is no shortage of applicants. There is no shortage of applicants for many jobs, including journalists, television newsreaders, lawyers and even supermarket managers. However, we have to ask not whether there is a shortage of applicants but whether we are attracting--and are likely to continue to attract--applicants of the right calibre. We cannot continue to ignore the comparables to which our attention has been drawn, not least in early-day motion 1101, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley).
Secondly, on pages 9 and 10 of volume 2, the review body's report draws attention to the jumps between different ministerial posts. Many hon. Members will be familiar with the general view that it is bad practice to have too large a jump between different levels of responsibility. If we greatly increase Ministers' salaries at all levels--as we must--and if we do not take similar action in respect of ordinary hon. Members, there is a risk that any hon. Member might feel that a successful parliamentary career required him or her to fulfil a Front-Bench job. In addition, those on the Opposition Benches--whichever party they represent--would be automatically deprived of the greater opportunities provided by a ministerial salary.
I emphasise that the undoubted justification for a substantial increase in ministerial salaries is another supporting justification for the report's recommendation on salaries of hon. Members. We need to attract and retain hon. Members of ability--I would suggest outstanding ability--and, if we fail to do so, we risk damaging not so much this Parliament as future Parliaments and the reputation of the House and the country.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |