---

Members' Salaries

We are now having the debate that we all knew we had to have, and I take a very simple view on this matter. I expressed that view to the Leader of the House in an earlier question. We have had this nonsense year after year for all the time that I have been in this place—25 years, the same length of time as the Leader of the House. We are now rightly saying, ““Let's stop this annual game of trying to work out what we think we can get away with in our pay increase. Let's have an independent system.”” That has been agreed, which is a blessed relief. We have asked two lots of people—the Senior Salaries Review Body and Sir John Baker—to give us a comparator and a starting point. Effectively, they have both come back with the same answer, saying, ““Here is a comparator that we have worked out, having looked at lots of alternatives and rejected them, and here is a starting point.”” I should like to remind colleagues of what Sir John Baker said on the uprating mechanism. He said that it should meet certain criteria, including that"““it must be easy to understand, independent and authoritative, transparent and not capable of manipulation; it should be sustainable over a number of Parliaments…it should be based on pay comparators and not price comparators…It should reflect movements in earnings and not settlements.””" He rejected linking us to the civil service, for very good reasons, and rejected an approach based on another suggested basket of comparators. He came to a view that he recommends indexation. He could not have been clearer about that. He drew on the work of the Senior Salaries Review Body and suggested that the public sector average earnings index was the right comparator. He says:"““I am sure, having considered and discussed the options extensively, that this is the best solution. It meets all the criteria in paragraph 32 above and I believe that, if implemented, it would be likely to last for many years… Other public sector workers may argue that it is unfair if MPs' pay is automatically indexed to earnings while they have to negotiate””," but he concludes that it will provide the safest, most secure and most appropriate long-term comparison. Otherwise, he says, we will be in the same debate again, because we will either go ahead or fall behind the average public sector wage and we will not have what we want, which is the break between this debate and an annual recurrent questioning of the issue. I am clear that—for myself no more than anyone else—we really must get into a system that has an objectively assessed basis from the beginning and an objectively assessed comparison thereafter. Let me put this point directly to the Government, as there is no other way of putting it. Of course, Governments have a pay policy and will always have a pay policy, but we cannot predict what it is going to be. Some of us have taken the consistent position that if we ask for independent advice about public sector pay, we should follow it—whether it be for nurses, the police or whatever. There is no logic in taking one view and then not adopting the same view for ourselves. Somewhat more personally, let me say that it is easy for the Government to say, ““Hold back, everybody””, because everyone in the Government is paid significantly more than anyone else here. I make that as a practical household point. Nobody in the Government will be affected in the same way as people who are not in the Government. That is obvious. I think there are only two other people in the House who get top-up salaries other than the Back-Bench MP salary. As to the amendments, I can see the attractiveness of saying, ““Hang on a minute, people; let us be careful; let us not implement this now””, but a proposal that says, ““Not now, but catch up next year””, or ““Not now, but catch up later”” is, bluntly, a bit of a deception and not as honest and straightforward as going straight for the proposal before us now. Obviously, it is a less bad option than not linking into the independent system. Moving slowly towards that remains preferable to not moving to the independent system at all. I accept that and I understand that that is why the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) and the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) are proposing amendments. I hope that colleagues will have the straightforward common sense to say, ““Let's grasp the nettle, accept the independent report, accept the overwhelmingly strong argument that Sir John Baker gives and solve the problem””, rather than have it coming back just before and just after a general election or at any time in the future.