| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. McLoughlin: I am pretty sure that the Leader of the House said that we are basically talking about the rules that relate to allowances, not about the level of allowances. That is the clear distinction. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is a reference to the SSRB, to which a number of people have been asked to submit evidence. I stand to be corrected, but we are talking solely about the rules that relate to allowances.
Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman will also agree, from his long experience in the House, that the devil is in the detail. There might be some devilish detail that might not now come under the purview of the SSRB, or that might be perceived not to. Let us remember that these sensitive issues are matters of perception, so I would like to be explicitly reassured that the SSRB will continue to consider matters objectively and independently outwith the Westminster bubble and that we will not find things drifting back.
Mr. Hain: I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance that matters such as Members' pay that are currently referred to the SSRB will properly remain as such—the public should see that they will remain as such. As the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) pointed out, the motion is about rules relating to allowances. Given the nature of the business of the House, I am sure that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) would not want to take up valuable time that could be used to discuss the Hutton report by debating whether the retail prices index figure for triggering an increase in allowances should be that as recorded on 1 April or 1 January. We should be serious and use common sense, which is what the motions are about.
Mr. Tyler: I entirely agree. The Leader of the House gives us an innocent and obviously common-sense example. I just want to be reassured that it will not be possible for things, over the years, to start to drift off to the Members Estimate Committee that frankly should be out there in the light of day. I accept his assurance, but I am putting down a marker. I hope that we will find that there will be a mechanism for the Committee to report back regularly to the House on such issues because that is extremely important.
Mr. Heald: Just to reassure the hon. Gentleman, I think that subsection (5) covers that because it requires the Committee to report to the House.
Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman might misunderstand me—I am trying to be as speedy as possible. I am concerned that if there were any drift such as that that I am describing, we would have to consider not only the matters that the Committee was examining, but whether the boundaries between its work and that of the SSRB seemed to be moving. If there were a moving target, the House would wish to be informed.
My next point is equally specific, although I am sure that reassurance will be given. As the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and other hon. Members said, there is worry about long-established issues that go right back to 1945. I am quite clear that when a motion comes before the House in future, perhaps on the basis of the SSRB's present review of these matters, direct reference could be built into it regarding the Committee's role in dealing with the detail. However, there would be a different situation if a retrospective attitude were taken—if we were looking backwards. Something that the House agrees that the Committee should consider is different in degree to something that the House has considered previously that would then be considered retrospectively by the Committee. I understand the need for that to occur, but I want it to be absolutely clear that in such circumstances there might need to be a reference back to the whole House, although that would depend on the scale of the identified problem.
Finally, I return to the role of the Speaker's advisory panel. I entirely endorse the comments made about the panel and, indeed, the work done for the panel by Officers of the House. However, I did not entirely accept the assurances given by the Leader of the House to the chairman of the panel. I do not fully understand—I hope that somebody will spell this out—why the panel cannot take on some or all of the responsibilities that are now identified as necessitating the construction of a completely new Committee.
I respect all members of the Commission enormously, but they are already heavily loaded with work. The fact that they will have to sit as a shadow Commission on the Committee raises concerns. The great advantage of the advisory panel of which the hon. Member for Cambridge is a distinguished chair—I think that it has operated effectively—is that it is a Back-Bench committee. It responds to the concerns, anxieties, objectives and aspirations of all hon. Members. The Commission, by definition, is the establishment personified, and its members are very distinguished.
I would like to think that someone considered whether the panel could have taken on the responsibilities because it reports to the Speaker, who is the Chairman of the Commission. We may be inventing yet another bit of what the Leader of the House described as the governance of the House, but duplication should always be questioned to determine whether someone else could do a job equally well. I am unconvinced by the explanation of the respective roles. I entirely understand a point made by the Leader of the House because the last thing that I would want would be for the new Committee to take on the panel's responsibilities, but no one has explained why that could not happen the other way round.
I am seeking reassurance. Nothing is more unnecessarily controversial than matters that affect the way in which we do our job. I endorse entirely what the hon. Member for Cambridge said. When I first came to this place, I was lucky if I could find a desk. I did not have a phone and I could not pay a secretary—the whole thing was absurd. I could not do my duty by my constituents. We are now better funded, which is
excellent, but I want to be reassured that we are not hiding in a corner some changes to our arrangements that the public might feel were going too far.1.55 pm
Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab): I feel a bit like Winston Churchill when he was Prime Minister and he used to wander the gardens of No. 10 Downing street saying, "I had not intended to intervene in this debate, Mr. Speaker", while dictating his speech to his secretary. I genuinely had no intention of participating in the debate. As a member of the Commission, I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) for his gentle and generous comments about the members of the Commission who are with us today. However, I wish to make one point in response to his question asking why we should not form an independent panel rather than have the Commission shadow itself on these matters. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take the simple answer from me and that he would have taken it from the Leader of the House.
At this moment in time, House of Commons services are funded from the House of Commons administration estimate, for which the House of Commons Commission has statutory responsibility. Hon. Members' pay and allowances, including Members' staff matters and Members' information technology provision, are funded separately from the Members' estimate, which is governed by a range of resolutions of the House dating back to 1945, and administered under the authority of the Speaker of the House. The Speaker is advised on allowance matters by the Speaker's advisory panel, under the able chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). Given the statutory responsibility of the Commission and the fact that the advisory panel reports to the Speaker, the new arrangement is logical—we welcome the fact that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) suggested it. I hope that that answers the question asked by the hon. Member for North Cornwall.
1.57 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire) (Con): I welcome the motion moved by the Leader of the House. I do not think that it will change the role of the Speaker's advisory panel because it will remain as an advisory panel. In effect, the measure will create a greater stop-gap because it will bring more people into the decision-making process. Although the panel, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) will, I hope, continue to make detailed recommendations, it is right for another body, rather than the Speaker alone, to oversee such matters. The Leader of the House has responsibilities to the whole House and he will be here every week to answer questions if one thinks that something is going wrong.
The proposal will not reduce accountability but broaden it. Given the way in which the allowances have changed over the years, it is important for us to enable the measure to go forward. It is nonsense that some changes can be made to allowances via the Speaker's advisory panel with no reference to the Floor of the House, yet for other changes to require such a reference. I would much prefer to be spending this afternoon
talking about my constituents' wider concerns than having a debate—okay, it will not be a long debate—that has had to be scheduled in parliamentary time and has thus taken away the House's chance to discuss other measures.1.59 pm
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): This has been a short and useful debate and I am grateful to hon. Members who have spoken and intervened. I am especially grateful to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) for his support for the motions. Perhaps I should put on record our thanks to the members of the House of Commons Commission and the members of the Speaker's advisory panel. I confess that when I assumed my duties I was not aware of the intricacies of the Speaker's advisory panel. I reiterate our thanks to the chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), and the Members who serve alongside her. The discussions of the Speaker's advisory panel are extremely useful in helping us to make better decisions precisely because it is an advisory panel and not a final decision-making body. That is an important distinction.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House emphasised, the motion includes a number of safeguards. Proposals to create new forms of charge or increase any rate of charge or payment will still have to come to the Floor of the House. The circumstances in which the Members Estimate Committee may amend a resolution are tightly defined, and by linking membership to that of the House of Commons Commission, the House can be assured that the new Committee will take an impartial and considered view of what matters it should properly deal with. The motions under consideration have received support from Members on both sides on the House, and my right hon. Friend wishes to put on record his thanks to the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) for the considered role that he played in the proposals.
On the bicycle allowance, some reports this week suggested that some hon. Members believe that the proposed increase in the bicycle allowance is excessive. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, who takes advantage of the allowance. I can assure the House that there are very few Members—not enough, some would say—who do. However, my hon. Friend rebutted those arguments about an excessive increase. The cost of the increase to the public will be minimal.
As I have said, very few Members claim the bicycle allowance, and they are a minority of those of us who do, in fact, use a bicycle to get to work. Using a bicycle is not without cost, as has been said. We wish to link the allowances to the Inland Revenue rates as that is a sensible principle. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) expressed concerns about the appearance and the reality of Members' allowances. It is justifiable to link them to other bodies' rates, which is why the Government increased the bicycle allowance in line with Inland Revenue rates. The 20p allowance has been introduced as part of the move away from car journeys, and it is right that we should encourage, and be seen to encourage, environmentally friendly forms of transport. There is a strong case for linking the allowance to the Inland Revenue rate, as that will mean
that we will not have to debate similar motions—to reassure the hon. Member for North Cornwall, the allowances motion is separate from the estimate motion and will introduce an increase in the rate—annually on the Floor of the House.On the motor cycle allowance, I would have liked to declare an interest, but my motor scooter was nicked the other day, so I fear that I will not be able to take advantage of the allowance for some time. Before Opposition Members start to blame the Government for the theft of my trusty scooter, I can reassure them that the police have acted swiftly and successfully to investigate the crime—[Hon. Members: "Successfully?".] Not yet, I believe, although I hope that that will be the case.
In conclusion, the proposal for a Members Estimate Committee is a sensible and innovative measure, which should enhance the good governance of the House. The proposal on bicycle and motor-cycle mileage allowances is also sensible, and I hope that the House will support the motions.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |