---

Queen’s Speech

My Lords, on the "Today" programme of 12 November, John Humphrys rather contemptuously said: "Who on earth would want to be a Member of Parliament?". Sadly, it is a sentiment that one hears repeated all too often by ex-MPs and by many Members in the other place who are decent and worthy people with a strong commitment to public life, service in Parliament and their constituents, but who now question whether the family and financial sacrifices involved make the job worthwhile. This is becoming an important constitutional issue. As with any other occupation or calling, there will always be applicants for the job; but that misses the point. In the media furore over allowances there are a few still, small voices of reason. One was in the Times editorial of 5 November on the Kelly report, which stated: ""Ensuring that the conditions of office attract and retain people of high professional standing did not feature. It was a revealing omission"." The Times was right about attracting and retaining people of high professional standing. I make it clear at the outset that I do not condone abuses of the second home allowance, and if fraud is proven in a tiny number of cases the law must take its course. Of course, the damage of the expenses issue has been great; but I fear that, unless we draw the right conclusions, the long-term damage will be much greater. The single point I will make tonight is that, if the Kelly recommendations are implemented in full, it will be essential—somebody has to say this—that there is a much more realistic salary for MPs. The rot set in, and the time-bomb started ticking, when MPs voted—I think in 2003—for a 40 per cent increase in allowances over and above what the SSRB had recommended. This was in part because many new MPs had faced a considerable drop in income on entering Parliament. It also reflected the fact that there is never a right time for Governments to accept increases in MPs’ salaries much beyond inflation. The covert solution—wrong because it produced the ticking time-bomb—was to substantially increase allowances. When I re-entered commercial life, I was astonished at the disparity that had grown over the years between parliamentary salaries and those that I was now seeing around me. It is ironic because, until the second homes furore, most informed media comment and public debate in recent years had concentrated on two points. First, a too-high and increasing proportion of Members in the other place have devoted most of their lives to a political career—university politics, research assistant and then MP—and not enough have had careers in the so-called real world from which they can bring their experience and expertise to the Commons in the same way as the experience and expertise of noble Lords so conspicuously benefits your Lordships’ House. My noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon made that point. The second point is that the authority of and scrutiny by Parliament over the Executive have been steadily eroded, but the proposals in the constitutional reform Bill do not go to the heart of this. It is a supreme irony that the current populist clamour, and the recommendations that may follow from it, will deeply reinforce both those trends. I draw particular attention to the second point—that an even more weakened Parliament, if Kelly’s recommendations are not accompanied by a proper salary, will substantially increase the power of the Executive. From a very important vantage point the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, made something of the same issue from a different perspective. Perhaps I may briefly make the case. First, one does not go into politics at any stage unless one is deeply dedicated to public service and has a strong commitment to help one’s constituents and a willingness to work very long hours not only on weekdays in Parliament but every weekend in one’s constituency. Secondly, what Parliament does deeply affects the industries, the jobs, the freedoms, the standard of living and so on—possibly even life itself—of everyone in the country. Of course, large numbers of citizens have highly responsible jobs elsewhere, but I believe that the responsibilities of MPs must rank very high on the scale. Thirdly, and in some ways most importantly of all, the great majority of Ministers are drawn from the House of Commons. Ministerial responsibilities and workloads are enormous. We need people of calibre and high stamina to do them. Of course, in many other professions one gets exactly the same commitment and quality, but the rewards now are vastly different. Nearly 50 executives in the BBC are paid more than the Prime Minister and one could produce legions of examples elsewhere. Of course, if financial reward were your motivation in your career, you would never dream of entering Parliament. Many moving up the ladder in outside careers accept that they make financial sacrifices in seeking election and they do so because of the fulfilling nature of the job. However, there are limits and if, on top of the financial and family pressures, the job is so devalued by continuous public calumny, for many it will be a no-brainer. Next, for most a second home is not just essential for doing the job but pretty well a requirement. Most constituencies expect their MPs to have a home in the constituency. Frankly, the Kelly proposal for small purpose-built or purchased flats in Westminster is demeaning and would make normal family existence almost impossible. Philip Stephens, writing in the Financial Times recently—a second still small voice of reason—asked: ""Does Britain want a parliament peopled by the rich, the retired, the young and the childless—perhaps with a few party hacks thrown in? That is the way it is heading by stripping MPs of their allowances"." Finally, to make matters worse, it is a highly precarious career. Many MPs will be able to serve only one or two Parliaments, but in this day and age it is extremely difficult for many to pick up the threads of a career outside after 10 years’ absence from it. I was involved in a poll of MPs who lost their seats after the 1997 election, many of them unexpectedly. A year after, not many had been able to find the sort of jobs that they would probably have continued to have had they not had a spell in Parliament. Those are all reasons why, if the Kelly recommendations are accepted, there must be a more appropriate salary. After all, GPs are in general, I believe, now on £100,000 a year; young accountants in the City after qualification, still well below the age of 30, are on £60,000 to £70,000 salaries, with bonuses of up to 30 per cent on top; and lawyers earn even more, with huge prospects of increases thereafter. Senior executives in local authorities are now paid much more—often double, treble or even more—than MPs, which was not the case for much of my parliamentary career. Middle-ranking people in industry are the same, and so on and so on. Even journalists—I say no more. It will be unpopular, but it is right. I have a final quotation from my weekly indulgence, Country Life. Early on in the furore, on 20 May its leader page led with, "What to do about these wretched MPs’ expenses". I started to read it with trepidation, thinking that even it had got on the bandwagon. But it was an excellent analysis and concluded: ""So no half measures: make the salary … a year"." I hardly dare mention the figure; it was so much higher than the present one. It went on: ""The scandal is not MPs’ expenses but the hash they have made of Iraq, Afghanistan and the economy, not to mention the failure of the back benchers to hold the executive to account"." The key point was: ""For quality decision-making, we need quality people in Parliament: the present system puts them off"." Country Life’s salary figure may be surprisingly high, but its sentiment is absolutely right.