Proceeding contribution from Tony Lloyd (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 24 January 2008. It occurred during Debate on Members' Salaries, Pensions and Allowances.
Members' Salaries, Pensions and Allowances
I am not sure where the ambiguity lies. The Leader of the House made it clear that Sir John Baker will be asked to report specifically on the mechanism, which will begin to have an impact from 2010-11 onwards. I believe that that is the precise timetable—but perhaps I am missing the point. That is my understanding, but others may say that it is defective. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House is not attempting to dissent from my interpretation. My colleagues want to be assured that the timetable is robust and includes adequate scope for consultation and consideration of Sir John Baker's proposals, and that those proposals will establish a robust and independent mechanism. There is a major prize to be gained by all hon. Members, because for the first time, we will be in a position to tell the public that Members of Parliament are not engaged in some ignoble process of fixing their salaries. Our salaries will be determined for us, as happens to people in different walks of life who have no direct control over their pay. Some hon. Friends may argue that we should have a negotiating process, and that otherwise we would perhaps be ceding something that we would never cede on behalf of our constituents. However, establishing independence is vital, and we now have a chance to grasp that nettle. The other point that I want to establish is as follows. There is an element of uncertainty to the process, because we are moving the necessary decision making from our debate today, which normally would have been conclusive, to the debate in June, or thereabouts, on decisions that we cannot yet precisely anticipate, because we cannot anticipate what Sir John Baker will do. There is inevitably an element of risk in that process. There is, however, a fail-safe, because the House has the capacity to reject, either in whole or in part, any recommendations that Sir John Baker comes up with. In that sense, it is better to ask Sir John to review those mechanisms independently, rather than keep the process within the confines of the House. In the end, if part of the process is about generating longer-term public confidence in what we are doing, as well as confidence among Members of Parliament, an element of externality in relation to our own pay will inevitably be necessary.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 470 c1671-2
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Pay Workplace pensions Members Tax allowances
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 01:14:48 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_438697
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_438697
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_438697