| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.46 pm
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire): I shall intervene briefly, as so far the debate has featured contributions from individual Opposition Back Benchers. We on the Opposition Front Bench, who have responsibility for monitoring and scrutinising legislation, have a slightly different perspective.
The Conservative party does not have a view on this matter, and we are on a free vote. My right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), and for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) are perfectly entitled to insist that matters such as this are debated in the House. I want to put in on record that I have never been on a Select Committee visit overseas, but I have used this scheme. About a year ago, right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Foreign Secretary, and I went to Brussels. We had some very useful visits and worked quite hard.
I do not follow the logic, however, that the scheme should be scrapped. Given that more and more legislation comes from Europe, it is important for Opposition Front Benchers to maintain contacts with European institutions, so I do not think that scrapping the scheme would be right.
I have no difficulty with the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden. When I used the scheme, I had to state where I was going and why, so the Fees Office has some capacity to monitor the scheme. It is within the experience of many hon. Members that the Fees Office has the capacity to interrogate us about the purpose of telephone calls to America. That means that it has some capacity to track down what we get up to in other countries.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham):
I confess that I may be the onlie begetter of this proposal. I raised in opposition, and again as a Government Back Bencher, the idea that there should be stronger relations between the House of Commons and other national Parliaments. When I was elected five years ago, I was surprised to discover that one could not make a telephone call to Europe, or send a letter there, or discharge one's duties to constituents if that involved going to Europe.
Frankly, tonight I would rather be in Barcelona, but as soon as the debate ends I must change into a dinner jacket and repair to the German embassy for a dinner in honour of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), that well-known Conservative hero. As a Back Bencher, I feel a bit nervous about taking on three Conservative Privy Councillors opposed to the proposal.
Mr. MacShane:
I am told that the number is down to two. We are seeing a bit of a split. This is the beginning of big-tent politics--Patten Tuesday, Goodlad and Davis today. Things are moving forward as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) comes on board with the Government side.
A couple of points are worth making. I asked the House of Commons Library how much it costs per hour to run this place. The answer is £150,000. We have already spent a good part of that because the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Haltemprice and Howden objected to this proposal, which we flagged up in opposition and in government as an issue that
needed to be considered. The right hon. Gentlemen who complain that we should not spend taxpayers' money have turned the tap on full in the past 40 minutes.
A moment ago we voted not to decrease public expenditure by charging foreign visitors to come to the House of Commons in the summer. Hon. Members have a right to do that, but they then have no right to say that they are defenders of the public purse. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, we are not increasing the vote of the House--it is not Government money--by a single penny.
I should have thought that this proposal would appeal to the more Europhobe Conservative Members. They should endorse a measure that would increase the connections and relationships between the national Parliaments of Europe.
Mr. Davis:
I want to correct the hon. Gentleman, because he is misquoting his Front-Bench colleagues. They said that no more money would be allocated, which is not the same as saying that no more money would be spent. In the past seven years, the amount allocated has been £250,000 a year, whereas the amount spent has been £44,000 a year. If the scheme succeeds in its stated intent, the amount spent will increase to £250,000, sospending will increase. We should not be under that misapprehension.
Mr. MacShane:
That depends on the take-up, and the evidence is that, under the existing scheme, a maximum of between 70 and 100 hon. Members take it up. That money has been voted by Parliament, so the full amount could be spent. It has not been spent, and this scheme will not increase that voted expenditure by a single penny. I would be interested to know, as someone who likes to count the figures, where the non-spent money goes. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden is the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, so perhaps he will look into that.
Each hon. Member can, if he so chooses, go up and down to his constituency once, twice, three or four times a day travelling first class or claiming mileage. There is no examination of how that money is spent. If we want to represent this Parliament's interests in other national Parliaments or to represent our constituents' interests abroad--a large number of people work in Europe and maintain an address in this country, and more than half our trade is with European Union countries--it is absurd to suggest that such travel should be stopped.
Alternatively, we could find other sources of funding for these trips. We could phone up the owner of Harrods and ask for a weekend in the Ritz. We could go on other junkets and do far more damage to the good name of the House. Unless we found an external source to pay for such trips, they could not take place.
I have no shame in arguing that case. I am grateful that my colleagues on the Front Bench have accepted the excellent suggestion of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. I think that we should be upfront, and that this information should be made public. That is far better than using alternative sources of money.
Mr. Maclean:
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we should be upfront, would it be acceptable for a list to be published each year stating where each Member went, the cost of the trip and what they did?
Mr. MacShane:
I would have no problem with that. If hon. Members provide a full record, all that information
Mr. MacShane:
He went 100 times to Brussels. I thought that he meant that he had made 100 trips to other European capitals while serving as a Minister. In The Guardian today, the right hon. Gentleman, speaking as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said:
Mr. Davis:
It would certainly help to win my support. The hon. Gentleman shows what is wrong with the thought processes behind the measure. He seems to see this as a division of spoils. I did not read the article from which he is quoting, but I told the journalist that what matters is that taxpayers benefit from taxpayers' money--full stop; nothing else. If the hon. Gentleman thinks of this as a division of spoils between Front Benchers and Back Benchers, that is entirely the wrong approach. The right approach is to ask who pays for it and who gains from it. It should be the taxpayer who gains from it, not Members of Parliament.
Mr. MacShane:
One bitter lesson that we have learned under new Labour is not to give interviews to journalists from The Guardian. The right hon. Gentleman might follow that advice. He is saying that paid trips are okay for Ministers and for members of Select Committees, but Back Benchers can get stuffed. I speak for Back Benchers. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] I speak for some of them, and I speak for members of the Opposition Front Bench, for members of the Government and for the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. I hope that this measure will go through.
"It is important that members of select committees should travel abroad so that Parliament is kept informed."
The article says that the total bill is £450,000, which is 10 times what is spent at the moment on the measure that we are discussing. I am not a member of a Select Committee or a right hon. Gentleman, and I find it slightly offensive that Ministers can travel to Europe as often as they want, and that members of Select Committees can spend £500,000 of taxpayers' money as and when they please. There is one difference. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"I look at the costs against the cost of equivalent ministerial trips--MPs travel club class while ministers travel first class."
I am happy to table a third amendment requiring them to travel economy class, if that helps to win support.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |