| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's time is up.
9.29 pm
Sir Terence Higgins (Worthing): I wish to support the review body's recommendations regarding Members of Parliament and Ministers, and to reject the Government's proposals.
It is frequently said that Members of Parliament determine their own pay, but over the years it has in fact been determined by the Government of the day. Whatever the pay review body may have said, time and again Governments, for purely tactical reasons, have phased, staged and reneged on what independent bodies have proposed. The effect of that over 30 years has been that, while the incomes of people in the country on average have increased by 80 per cent., in real terms Members of Parliament have had no increase whatever, and Ministers' pay has more than halved.
Against that background, it was entirely sensible that, in response to the overwhelming demand from early-day motion 351, we set up a review body that would be able to take a strategic view. One must congratulate the review body on its report, produced very much against the clock. It goes into great detail, and makes an overwhelming case for the recommendations to be accepted.
Let us nevertheless be clear in our minds that what is proposed in the report will go nowhere near far enough to restore the position of 30 years ago, which itself was not very good. I took a pay cut when I entered the House, and I dare say that many other hon. Members did so. The review body therefore makes a very moderate proposal in the context of the position over time.
There were exchanges earlier as to what evidence the Government gave. Whatever that evidence was, the review body reached its conclusion having taken into account the evidence submitted to it by the Government. It no doubt moderated what might otherwise have been the conclusions of its report in the light of the Government's evidence. In those circumstances, it would be totally wrong for the Government to reject the view expressed by the review body.
We are told that we must exercise restraint. It is plain from the figures that I quoted that we have exercised restraint for 30 years. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] There is very little evidence that anyone has ever followed our example. In any case, they cannot possibly have had the figures I have quoted if that were so. At all events, we now encounter the extraordinary position, once again, of the Government advancing a tactical argument, saying, "Exercise restraint--only 3 per cent."
What the Government should do, and what Opposition Front Benchers should do, is explain to the public that we have exercised restraint, but the position has deteriorated to the point where it is no longer acceptable--and, in my view, extremely dangerous. So let us hear no more about restraint; the restraint has been exercised, and it is wrong to proceed in the way that the Government have suggested.
We must nevertheless appreciate the point about the link. Time and again in the House we have had problems because we have to review it and vote on it annually. I accept what the Leader of the House said on that point, but we must start from the right basis, and we need to conduct a once-for-all reappraisal of the overall position.
What is remarkable today is the extent to which the media now support that. I cannot recall a previous occasion when that has been so. True, the "Today"
programme this morning said that the review body's proposal was nine times the rate of inflation--which is ludicrous, for the reasons that I have just given--but, by and large, from The Sun to The Times, the public are gradually being told what needs to be done. It is important that the Government contribute to that process.
There are frightening dangers regarding recruitment, and, more especially, retention. The crucial point about the House of Commons and the need to get Members of quality, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury) rightly emphasised, is the fact that we need a reserve of Members who may become Ministers.
The quality of government will deteriorate if we do not do that. Regardless of what any individual who is putting in a pay claim outside may say, our constituents will lose if we do not have a House of Commons and Ministers of sufficient integrity and quality. It is an honour to be in the House--that is absolutely true. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove pointed out, people are bound to take into account the situation outside--and it is analysed in great detail in volume 2 of the report.
The extent to which this place holds the Government to account has been enormously improved by the development of the Select Committee system. However, to a large extent that depends on hon. Members remaining in the House after they have ceased to be Ministers, to serve as Chairmen or members of the Select Committees. Former Ministers who serve on Select Committees, either as Chairmen or members, will not remain in the House with a pay rate of £33,000 a year--it would be absolutely ludicrous to expect them to do so. Therefore, the ability of the House of Commons to hold the Government to account is undermined by the Government's proposals this evening.
Although I shall not be here to benefit from any increase in pay in the next Parliament, I believe that, if we do not take this opportunity tonight, we will face the danger of a deterioration in the quality of government, both at ministerial and at parliamentary level. That is of great importance.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire):
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) in the debate. For many years, he has flown the flag for reasonable increases in pay and for a better analysis of what Members of Parliament need to do their job. He deserves credit for that, because he has put the case extremely well.
I support the amendments that were spoken to by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). I have recently joined the pension trustees of the parliamentary pension fund, and I am distraught and disconcerted by some of the actions we have to take, using our small discretionary fund, to supplement the pensions that are in payment to some former Members and their
relatives. It is our duty to do that, as the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe pointed out. We got legal advice that made it quite clear that, as pension trustees, we had a duty to ensure that pensioners' provisions were improved to the maximum available to us.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe tabled the amendments as chairman of the trustees--and I pay tribute to the work that he does in that regard. The amendments are important, and I hope that they will be supported by hon. Members, irrespective of their views on the main question of the 3 per cent. versus the package.
This should be a House of Commons matter. The way in which the Government have acted has not allowed hon. Members a proper and unfettered consideration this evening.
The Leader of the House has discharged his duties reasonably well, and I do not hold him personally responsible for our difficulties. However, I think that some of his Cabinet confederates have made it impossible for us to consider the matter properly. No matter what role we play as Members of Parliament--whether party leaders, Ministers or Chairmen of Select Committees--we must make our own decisions, having consulted our consciences. We must be able to defend the decisions we take and the votes we cast this evening to our constituents: the public have that safeguard. That is the proper way to determine whether our decisions are right and proper.
I think that the review body performed a difficult task well in a short space of time. I was surprised that the Leader of the House did not acknowledge its work. I was even more surprised that he did not make it clear whether the Government accept the pay review recommendations but are seeking pay restraint on a voluntary basis. That is my clear recollection of what occurred in 1983: the Government said, "We think that the Top Salaries Review Body report is right, but, in the special circumstances of the case, we should exercise restraint".
The Government do not say that now; they say simply that they do not accept the report's recommendations, but they refuse to say why. I think that the Government should clarify that point. It is important to know whether they accept the report, as the question may return to haunt us in the way that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) has described. We know that the Government are seeking voluntary pay restraint, but we must know also how they view the recommendations.
It is quite incomprehensible that the Government should commission a report, invite the review body to produce recommendations and then treat them in a summary way without justification. I think that it is totally wrong. I am particularly worried about the sentence in the review body's report in paragraph 79:
If that formula is destroyed, it is inevitable that the issue will haunt us time after time. We are being invited to try to make judgments about what we are worth in terms of remuneration--that is unedifying and undignified. I do not have the scales with which to weigh the various elements that one must balance in order to make such a judgment.
Did the pay review body assess the questions put to it correctly and draw the right conclusions? I believe that it used the right general principles and that it considered the right factors. It measured largely the same recommendations and adopted the same approach as the 1983 review body report, as was mentioned earlier. I think that the review body made the right comparisons. It concluded that the salary should be somewhere between £38,000 and £50,000. As the right hon. Member for Worthing said earlier, I think that we can argue that the review body has taken cognisance of the need for some restraint. No one has mentioned the fact that international comparisons are appropriate.
If the question is whether the review body's assessment and conclusions are right, I answer--for myself--in the affirmative. The second question, if the pay review body is right, is whether we are right to accept voluntary pay restraint and override the recommendations. I largely support the arguments that have already been made.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale has said, the 1983 decision was wrong. The clawback of £4,000 or £5,000 has produced this problem, and if we make the same decision this time, we will compound that mistake. We will also diminish the role of hon. Members, and we should not accept that lightly.
I am comfortable with the SSRB's comparisons, and I do not mind my salary being related to those of general practitioners, secondary school heads and others who do responsible jobs, because Members of Parliament carry a similar amount of responsibility. If we vote for 3 per cent., we may force people like myself, who are full-time Members with no outside income, to look for second jobs to be able to educate our children and discharge our duties to our families.
The point has also been made that we might discourage good people from standing for election in future, and I mentioned earlier the problem of folk receiving inadequate pensions after many years' service in the House.
The relationships with the people with whom we work should also be taken into account. Public utility chief executives, civil servants, health board executives and local authority officers are all now paid more than twice--sometimes three times--as much as Members of Parliament.
"We note however that unless the primary recommendations relating to these pay levels (recommendations 1 to 13) are implemented as recommended the uprating mechanism will not preserve an appropriate level."
If that is correct, it is an extremely serious matter. The report states that the formula that the package produces is appropriate as an uprating mechanism, and will stand the test of time, only if the whole package is accepted. The Government have made it clear that they favour a 3 per cent. increase instead of the package. Therefore, according to the report, the Government would destroy the formula.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |