I wish, Mr. Speaker, to present a petition which has been signed by 380 people. Each person is a householder, and therefore I am presenting a petition on behalf of 380 families.

The people concerned live in three housing action areas which are known as the Berry housing action area, the Chartist housing action area and the Membury housing action area in my constituency.

In their petition, my constituents express their concern about the deterioration in the environment of the housing action areas. They also express their concern about the inability of the city of Birmingham council to provide the funds which are needed for essential work to be done on the homes of people who live in those housing action areas.

The petition concludes:

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that Honourable Members of the House of Commons should ask the Secretary of State for the Environment that he should increase the Housing Investment Programme of the City of Binningham Council to make it possible for this work to be done.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.

May I say a brief word to the House about the form of today's debate? Under the business motion agreed by the House last Wednesday, the Questions on items 1, 2 and 3 on today's Order Paper, and

I beg to move,

During this process of review, has any account been taken of the work load which secretarial and research assistants might normally be expected to bear for a Member of Parliament? Do the moneys proposed take into account national insurance and other payments required for such assistance? Does my right hon. Friend have a view on whether the amount proposed is adequate for most Members of Parliament?

The review broadly took current scales and was designed to find a formula whereby they could be uprated annually without the necessity to come back for confirmation by the House, but, as I shall explain, there are provisions for the sort of review that my hon. Friend has in mind to take place from time to time so that one can relate those factors to the other considerations.

That brings me to the second feature of the motion, which may not be easy to understand at first or second glance. This year the allowance is to be increased by only four fifths of the relevant percentage. As hon. Members will be aware, the secretarial allowance has traditionally been increased on 13 June, but it is payable, under the relevant resolution of the House, for a financial year. That has involved a cumbersome calculation, and while we propose that the allowance should increase this year on 13 June, it is our intention to bring forward the date of increase in 1985 to 1 April to coincide with the start of the financial year. Thus, the 1984 limit will apply only from 13 June 1984 to 31 March 1985, and the four fifths formula in the motion is necessary to produce the same result over the whole year as would have been achieved under the old system. The motion ensures that no loss is incurred by the approach that we have adopted. I believe that these proposals represent an equitable method of regular alteration to the allowance, without the need for frequent debate and vote.

I come to the valid point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). No arrangement is immutable, and this one, like others, will be subject to review from time to time. I believe that the House will wish to endorse the motion.

The motion on motor mileage allowance concerns inevitably an area of some difficulty, given the widely differing circumstances of hon. Members. Whatever judgments are struck will involve some rough justice. The House will recall that until last July rates payable to Members of Parliament in respect of that allowance were tied to those applicable in the Civil Service. During the debate on hon. Members' pay and allowances on 19 July 1983 considerable unease was expressed about that link and the changes implicit in its continuance. I undertook to have the matter examined. In the meantime, hon. Members have received the higher of the two Civil Service rates introduced on 10 October 1983.

In accordance with my undertaking, I established an independent inquiry to determine the most appropriate means whereby hon. Members could be reimbursed the cost of their motor mileage. The inquiry was conducted under the chairmanship of my noble Friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I wish to pay tribute to him and the other members of the inquiry team—Lord Barnett and Mr. Richard Wilkes. They discharged a complex task with speed and imagination. I know that the whole House will wish to join me in thanking them for their efforts.

The report of the inquiry team recommends that the long-established link with the rate of allowance payable to civil servants should be severed. It proposes that in future the allowance should be calculated on the basis of the Royal Automobile Club schedules of motoring costs, with an enhanced element for depreciation, subject to an upper limit of 39p per mile for a car of 2600cc. The Government accept those recommendations.

Paragraph 7 of the report makes it clear that the 39p per mile figure is an upper limit and that where hon. Members use a smaller car and therefore incur lower costs they should limit their claim. In the interests of public accountability and of the proprieties being not only observed but seen to be observed, the Government propose to formalise that arrangement. Under the terms of the motion there will therefore be three tiers of allowance, calculated on the same basis as that used by the inquiry team. [Interruption.] I thought that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was throwing me a lifeline.

rose—

It is all right. I can do without it.

The three tiers will apply to cars of up to 1300cc, between 1301 and 2300cc, and 2301cc and above. That makes more specific the principle of an allowance based on engine size put forward by the inquiry team in its report.

There must be some concern about the upper limit of 39p per mile for vehicles of 2600cc. Will that not encourage hon. Members to purchase more powerful cars? Will it not be a bad consideration for the public at large? Has the Fees Office been consulted throughout on the new recommendations?

We have worked closely with the Fees Office, because it bears the onerous task of administering the scheme. I would not come to the Dispatch Box were I not tolerably happy that what has been recommended was a manageable arrangement. With regard to whether payments that are adduced by the RAC to cover motoring costs would result in hon. Members trading up, they must make their own judgment, but I should have thought that the major concern was that we should have a system whereby motoring costs were covered. The Peyton inquiry team did not think that possibility would be a significant factor in the arrangements and, I confess, neither did I. However, this is a House of Commons matter and hon. Members must make their own judgment. I notice that no hon. Member has tabled an amendment to reduce the 39p figure.

Will my right hon. Friend explain how the Government managed to accept, apparently with enthusiasm, the independent recommendations for secretarial and mileage allowances when they found it so difficult on 19 July last year to accept independent recommendations on salaries?

The House took the view that it regarded as appropriate on salaries and the Government accepted it. Moreover, I should point out that I stand at the Dispatch Box today with a sense of weary resignation, not enthusiasm. This is an intractable problem. Let there be no mistake about it. When the public monitor this they will not conclude that we have been engaged in a great exercise of self-deprivation. We should be under no illusions about that. The proposals are an attempt to strike a balance in an exceedingly difficult situation. Members have different motoring costs, largely related to the different types of constituency and it is difficult to find a simple, uniform system that is acceptable. The review committee made the recommendations in good faith and they seem to provide as good a basis as any for the House to try to resolve the problem.

Is not the argument that the higher rate will encourage people to buy larger cars ill founded, in that only the running costs are reimbursed? To buy a large car one needs to have or to borrow more money, which is not reflected in the allowances. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, it is."] Depreciation is included but not the cost of the car.

In my judgment, the scales proposed will not lead to a rash of Rolls-Royces cluttering up the Members' Car Park. I am sure the House will agree that it is important that Members of Parliament should be seen to be subjecting themselves to the same disciplines as would apply elsewhere.

Whatever the arguments about the specific mileage allowances, does my right hon. Friend accept that the previous flat rate system was fairer and easier to explain to the public?

That may be so—it is for the House to take a view on that—but Members were miserable with the flat rate system related to the Civil Service as soon as the formula was changed and they thought it was to their disadvantage. That is why the matter was brought into such sharp focus, to use the most neutral language possible, in last July's debate. Although I respect all the opinions being expressed, I should like to press on. Perhaps we could do a deal to the effect that any Member who interrupts me will not seek to speak later in this limited debate.

The Government's proposals will introduce rates of allowance for up to 20,000 miles per year of 18p per mile for cars up to 1300 cc, 25·9p for cars between 1301 cc and 2300 cc and 39p per mile for cars of 2301 cc and above. For mileage in excess of 20,000 in any one year, lower rates of 11·3p 14·7p and 19·5p per mile will apply.

If there are grounds for differentiating between sizes of car, why is there no differentiation on grounds of distance? Why is no account taken of the fact that some constituencies are 300 miles from London or that some Members have to drive up to 400 miles per weekend to cover their constituencies, whereas for others the entire constituency is within walking distance of a railway station?

There is a distinction in relation to distance. The practice operates in the Civil Service and in a large number of private sector companies. Any system which broadly attempts to relate motoring reimbursement to actual costs should appeal to the sense of equity of hon. Members and make good sound sense to the public outside. The reason for the difference between the rates is that the initial rate based on the RAC schedules reimburses all standing costs and running costs less the deduction for private use. The lower rate reimburses running costs with an enhancement for extra depreciation and repair costs. In both rates, the depreciation element has been enhanced to reflect the fact that Members of Parliament generally travel more than the 10,000 miles on which the RAC schedule is based. The new rates will come into effect on 1 October 1984 and be uprated on 1 April annually with the publication of revised RAC schedules.

More fundamentally, it has been represented to me that an allowance system based on engine size represents a step backwards to the system from which the House moved to a flat rate in 1964. The inquiry, however, found that a wide range of costs related to engine capacity. It seems reasonable that Members with distant or geographically large constituencies should choose to run larger than average cars because of those factors. Therefore, I accept that there are defensible reasons in equity for a multi-tier system. It may be argued that the Government, having taken that decision, should have taken the argument to its logical conclusion and proposed a six-tier system to correspond exactly with the RAC schedule of costs. I see no objection to that in principle, but one must strike a balance between absolute accuracy and ease of administration. I believe that the three-tier system combines fairness in relating allowances to costs, while avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy.

The House will have noted that paragraph 6 of the inquiry report recommends that Members wishing to claim for distances in excess of 25,000 miles a year should furnish particulars of all journeys included in their claim. It may help the House if I outline the way in which we envisage this being applied. The 25,000-mile limit will apply only to journeys undertaken by Members. Use of the vehicle by spouse or secretary qualifying for reimbursement will be treated on a de minimis basis and exempted. Similarly, travel by car in connection with Select Committee work will not count towards the 25,000-mile total.

The limit will apply only to journeys between Westminster and home constituency and within the constituency. Under the existing arrangements, Members routinely detail all journeys between Westminster and home constituency. There will be no change in that requirement. If, however, a Member feels that he is likely to exceed 25,000 miles in any given year, he will be expected to provide fuller particulars than hitherto of journeys within his constituency. The precise form in which such particulars should be provided is being considered by the House authorities.

If a Member has more than one car in more than one band of the proposed scheme, will he have to identify which car was used for which mileage? If a Member travels by taxi, as is often necessary if one arrives by air, the cost will be greater than can be claimed through the mileage allowance. Will the Member concerned therefore be allowed to claim at the highest rate of mileage allowance?

The answer to both questions is yes.

I accept at once that 25,000 is a somewhat arbitrary limit and that Members with distant or rural constituencies will reach it more easily and will thus be required to account for their mileage more closely than some of their southern or urban colleagues. Nevertheless, I felt it right to accept the inquiry's recommendation as an important demonstration that no special privilege or undue latitude is sought for Members of Parliament. I urge the House to consider the proposals in that spirit.

In conclusion, I suggest that the secretarial and motor mileage allowances must stand two broad tests. First, they must be equitable in relation to the costs borne. Secondly, they must be defensible to the wider public. I believe that the proposals meet those standards and I commend them to the House.

I beg to move amendment (a) to the proposed motion, in line 6, leave out `£12,000' and insert '£17,000'.

The amendment is concerned entirely with the amount of money made available to us for the office, secretarial and research allowance. The purpose of the amendment is to increase the amount from the level set in the motion—£12,000—to£17,000.

My intention is not to claim any privileges for us as Members of Parliament, but solely and simply to enable us to do our job better and to do justice to our secretaries and research assistants, if we have them. If we accept the amendment, the public will not take the view that we are voting perks for ourselves. They will understand that what we are doing is necessary and essential if we are to do our job properly.

An allowance of £17,000 would enable every hon. Member who so wishes to have a staff of two—one full-time secretary and one full-time research assistant. It could, of course, also be divided between two part-time secretaries and two part-time research assistants. It would also provide a minimum sum of money to enable us to buy, repair or update our typewriters and dictating equipment. Those are the minimum services that we need.

At present, the allowance is adequate for one secretary, about 0·2 per cent. of a research assistant, and the occasional purchase of a typewriter. That is not adequate. Hon. Members who have been here longer than I will say, "What are you complaining about? It was worse when I first came here." Every hon. Member will have heard that said by some older hon. Member, regardless of party. I appreciate the fact that this House is a conservative institution as well as, at the moment, alas, a Conservative one. However, we do not have to take conservatism to that extreme.

The second argument against my proposal is seldom stated explicitly, but I often suspect that the two Front Benches are in collusion about it. They reason that if they give Back Benchers more back-up and support, those Back Benchers will be able to make their lives more difficult. They want to keep us beaten down with constituency work in our offices or corridors so that we will not cause them too much trouble. That makes life easier for the Front Benches. Back Benchers are in a majority in this place We have the right to make certain demands, regardless of what Front Benchers may say to us. I hope that in that spirit the majority of Back Benchers will support my amendment.

Although I have not done the detailed research, it is difficult to find any Western Parliament where the back-up is less adequate than it is here. Almost every Western Parliament provides at least a staff of two for each Member, and so do some non-Western Parliaments. South Korea — which is hardly a byword for democratic procedures and practice — gives each Member of Parliament a staff of two.

I do not want to be accused of giving us all a pat on the back, and I hope I shall not be misunderstood, but it is my contention, based upon discussions with many Members of Parliaments throughout the world, that we work harder than the Members of any other elected assembly. I cannot prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt, but all the investigations that have been carried out and the discussions that we have had with our opposite numbers abroad tend to confirm that view.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a German Member of Parliament gets allowances worth £18,000, a salary of £28,000, free postage throughout the world, free telephone calls throughout the world, first-class rail travel throughout German territory and one free aircraft trip anywhere every month, subject to the approval of the relevant committee? That may seem grandiose in comparison with what we get, but I should also point out that the Bundestag processes fewer Bills per annum than we do, and yet it is a highly effective Parliament.

More money for less work.

I do not want to involve myself in an argument about the effectiveness of the Bundestag, but I am aware that we work longer hours and get through more work than our opposite numbers in Germany. In particular, we do more constituency case work. That is one of the key arguments, although not the only argument, in favour of my proposal.

Whether we like it or not, most of us have an ever-increasing burden of welfare or constituency case work, I welcome that fact. It is right that we should do that work. It keeps us in close touch with what is going on. That cannot be said of the many countries where Members tend not to do so much constituency work. However, the corollary is that we are short of time to cope with the wide range of other work for which we are responsible.

The public can be divided into two groups: those who are not aware of the poor facilities and back-up here and are astonished when we explain to them the problems that we face in trying to serve them; and those who know how poor the facilities are, but rightly say that it is entirely our own fault. They say that we need not put up with it, and that if we decide not to put up with it there are plenty of members of the public who would do the job in our place. We cut a poor figure when we moan about a lack of back-up, which is entirely our own fault.

I am not forgetting that there is an excellent Library, with first-class research staff. I pay tribute to the staff for all the work that they do for us. However, they cannot do for us all the work that a research assistant would do. It would be unfair of us to take to the Library all the work that we would like to take, because the staff could not cope with the burden. They have to work for all Members of Parliament. It would be helpful to have one's own research assistant, because he, or she, would understand one's approach to the job, one's problems and one's constituency.

Most of us simply do not read the bulk of the documents, circulars, White Papers and Select Committee reports which come our way. We do not have the time. Furthermore, no hon. Member would claim that his speeches or questions, or the letters that he writes to Ministers or to local authorities, are always as well thought out, researched and prepared as they should be. Civil servants must wonder why our parliamentary questions sometimes do not quite hit the mark or why the letters that we write to Ministers are rather sloppy and may not address themselves strictly to the point. The answer is that we do not have time to do such work properly.

We may also have to table a written question because we simply do not have the time to think through and draft a letter which might be more to the point. I do not agree with those who say that if all Members of Parliament have research assistants they will simply spend the time asking more questions. That would not necessarily be the outcome, but we might well ask better and more sensible questions. In any case, one of the reasons why we now ask questions is that we do not have the time to do our own digging and delving.

I hope that the House will support the amendment. It is a modest proposal that will enable us to do a better job of work for our constituents. They will therefore welcome it. It will also enable us to do justice to our secretaries and research assistants. I am sure that, sooner or later, such a change will be made and that we shall have the staff that I have talked about, so why not now?

I am sure that we all want to give a fair wind to the third motion on the order paper which concerns the Lord Chancellor's salary. I hope that he enjoys receiving and spending it.

I do not want to follow what the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) said about secretarial allowances as I do not believe that this is the right day to go into that matter in detail. The first motion merely gives effect to what we have already decided. A major debate of principle in regard to the level of secretarial and research back-up should be dealt with more effectively than in an amendment. If we are examining back-up for Members of Parliament and its cost, we should take account of the cost of written questions and similar matters, as the total back-up for a Member has a cost, and it might be possible, after consideration between Back-Bench party officers, to find a means of limiting total costs of back-up rather than merely the element of those costs which Members manage.

The hon. Gentleman said that now is not the appropriate time to examine the base rate for the secretarial and research allowance. Will he bear in mind that the present allowance was fixed as part of an overall package of Members' salaries and allowances at the start of this Parliament? It was voted through in the early hours of the morning, and there was little discussion about the allowance element of that package. Surely this morning, with three hours of debate, we have a proper chance to discuss the base rate.

I take the hon. Gentleman's hint. I shall not continue to make that point. Others can develop the case which I do not think is appropriate for today.

It is important to lay one or two elephant traps on car mileage. I believe that the signals in the proposed scheme will get Members doing things that they would not otherwise do. That might or might not be intended. Members who have a car, the cubic capacity of which is one or two cubic centimetres below one of the limits, will feel aggrieved, and, on changing the car, will go above the limit. That will involve extra cost without giving any advantage to a Member, except assuaging a sense of grievance. There is much to be said for a common system. I do not feel that so strongly that I shall deliberately overturn what the Government are proposing, but the sooner we get back to a system that gives Members the right signals, the better.

We should try to meet Members' costs in the form of standing charges and then provide a marginal amount for petrol and a little wear and tear. The old system did not do that. The basic cost of a motor car is so many hundreds or thousands of pounds a year, and the marginal cost, which is what we should get back for marginal motoring, can be estimated with some rough justice. As I said in last year's debate, I should have been happier if the Government had linked this with Civil Service procedures, so that we had one simple rate and we could then have argued about the number of miles. I regret that the House did not take that view, as it would have been more satisfactory than what we have. Even more satisfactory would be a lump sum and a low marginal reimbursement for the low marginal costs of motoring.

Does my hon. Friend agree with our right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that after what happened last year there was some groundswell of opinion among hon. Members against what emerged? Alternatively, does my hon. Friend agree with me that, having done what we did last year, there was broad satisfaction? That is why people do not understand why we have the present proposal.

The simple answer is that, when a proposal is made, those who object turn out. When the previous proposal emerged, the high mileage Members objected. Now it is probably the others who are objecting.

Perhaps I might clarify what is clearly a misunderstanding. The groundswell of resentment occurred when the House discovered that its attachment to the Civil Service formula meant a move to a system of abating payment for the first 9,000 miles and a reduced payment thereafter. The House has little sympathy for the privilege of the top rate, and I must observe that that privilege is not as secure as it will be under the scrutiny of the Inland Revenue if it continues.

The House should be prepared to review whatever arrangements we decide on or do not accept today so that, in the near future, we have a system under which a Member might get £1,500 a year and 10p a mile. A Member would then be indifferent about whether he or she travelled by train or by car. We should try to achieve that indifference. At the moment, a Member can retrieve most of the standing cost only by doing a high mileage. That probably involves a decision to drive when it might be more convenient and sensible to use public transport. That seems so obvious that it is likely to take the House many years to adopt it, but I have never thought that I should not come to the House and state the obvious.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are many constituencies, rural and urban, in which there is not an adequate public transport service? Because of the lack of transport, withdrawal of transport grants and other problems that have resulted from the present Government, many Members who represent constituencies in the north-west are forced to use a car to travel around constituencies and to neighbouring areas.

I entirely accept that point, and I thought that I had allowed for it. I am not suggesting that Members should automatically be badly off if they have to use a car for a high mileage. My point is that the system that we had was better than that which we might adopt and that the system that I am suggesting would meet most cases.

Perhaps I might make a personal point. With a London constituency and the need to use a car to get to it—a journey of about seven miles to the constituency boundary and about 10 miles in the constituency in a normal day—whatever system the House is likely to adopt will not meet my car expenses and having to have an extra car for the purpose. I do not mind that. That is rough justice, and I am one of those who do not gain under any system. Bearing that in mind, it is worth advancing sensible ideas that will lead to most Members getting most of their expenses most of the time, while avoiding the temptation to drive more often just to cover higher standing charges. Moreover, as one who has had a car with an engine capacity of 2·6 litres, another of 1·99 litres and another of 850cc, I can envisage the complications for the Fees Office and for Members of trying to make the right claim. I suspect that a bit of averaging goes on.

I welcome the Government's decision to index the secretarial allowance. Our staff will therefore know that if the salaries of people who do similar work in the Civil Service increase to take account of inflation Members will be able to increase the salaries of their staff. The annual wait to discover whether that will be possible was not satisfactory.

It is right that the overall rate of secretarial allowance should have been mentioned today. I do not think that this is the wrong time or the wrong day. We can quite properly discuss the matter now. I regret that it is still not possible to employ and pay properly a full-time secretary and a full-time research assistant, constituency assistant, political assistant or whichever combination of those functions is found most convenient, out of the secretarial allowance.

The review body recognises that that is the combination of staff needed by hon. Members. It is widely accepted that that is so. Not all hon. Members wish to avail themselves of that level of service, but those who do find it increasingly difficult, for the reasons that have already been given. Some hon. Members are under particularly heavy pressure. A Liberal Member has 120,000 constituents. The amount of correspondence generated by such a number of constituents is very great. Clearly he needs staffing support to carry out his duties. Therefore, the basis of the secretarial allowance needs to be expanded to provide a modest staff of two people. That is not an unreasonable demand when we compare our work with that of legislatures that carry less extensive responsibilities than we do.

Many other expenses must be met from the secretarial allowance. An hon. Member may have to meet the increasingly high cost of advertising constituency surgeries. In my area where there are many local papers it costs between £1,600 and £1,700 a year merely to advertise the time and place of the surgery. On top of that there may be rooms to be hired and other support costs to pay. There are stationery and office costs, which are not met from the allowance, especially if an hon. Member bases much of his secretarial work in his constituency. Some hon. Members choose to base their office work in the House and others in their constituencies. There are good reasons for either choice. However, in the latter case hon. Members must meet a higher proportion of the costs. They must pay for all telephone calls and they will not have the photocopying and other facilities that are available in the House. That should be recognised. My hon. Friends and I are therefore inclined to support the amendment moved on that matter.

Many hon. Members must travel a great deal by car to carry out their duties, especially in large constituencies and for hon. Members who must travel to and from distant constituencies where public transport is not ideal. Liberal Members represent some of the largest and most distant constituencies in the United Kingdom, and so we are not strangers to the problems involved. That has not led us to be enthusiastic about the Government's proposed solutions.

The proposition involves a high top mileage rate of 39p. That is much higher than any other rate available for others who undertake public activities, services or duties. I sympathise with the Government in that they are pressed again and again for independent reports on hon. Members' allowances, salaries and facilities and to act upon them. They never do that for our pay, but always reject the independent recommendations. Are we then wrong in chiding them for appearing to accept the recommendations of an outside body? They have not accepted the recommendations of an outside body. The outside body recommended that there should be a maximum reclaimable amount of 39p per mile and that hon. Members should claim within that maximum for the costs which they incur. The Government have proposed a banding system under which hon. Members claim at a specific amount for whatever kind of car they operate. The banding system is extremely limited.

The review body understood its recommendations to mean that hon. Members would claim at the most appropriate level and treat the 39p as a maximum—in many cases a maximum far beyond what would be claimed. The Government's proposals are not expressed as maxima. It is assumed that, whatever an hon. Member's costs are, he will claim at the rate for his particular size of car. He may have a 10-year-old 2·8 litre car whose depreciation is not as great as the sum envisaged in the mileage figures. The review body understood that, which is why it recommended a single maximum and expected hon. Members to claim within it, and did not recommend a banding system. Therefore, the Government cannot get away with saying that they are implementing the review body's recommendations.

We are entitled to examine the recommendations on their merits and see what their effects will be. They are way out of line with what people in other parts of the public service can claim, whether in the Civil Service or local government. They are out of line to an extent which cannot be justified by the particular circumstances of an hon. Member's use of a car. There are other problems. There are some differences between an hon. Member and a civil servant, which is why it is defensible to say that an hon. Member should be able to claim the current top Civil Service rate for a higher mileage than can a civil servant. Hon. Members' duties necessitate higher levels of mileage than are normal in most parts of the Civil Service, where civil servants are given a car allowance rather than a car. The public understand that it should be recognised that hon. Members, unless they are Ministers or Leaders of the Opposition, are not provided with official cars, but buy their own.

The trouble with the banding structure is that it becomes a direct incentive to an hon. Member to buy a car with a higher engine capacity. If he does so, he will be entitled to claim several thousand pounds a year more for car mileage allowance.

The hon. Gentleman's point that it will pay hon. Members to buy a bigger car cannot be true if the figures used by the independent review body are based, as they are, on the actual costs of running cars of this size as computed by the Royal Automobile Club. Therefore, the size of car will make no difference to hon. Members. The mileage rate will merely cover the running costs. The costs may be higher than those incurred by people in other public jobs, but that is because most hon. Members are doing marginal mileage on top of normal mileage. Provided one's mileage is about average, depreciation is not affected. Hon. Members' mileages massively affect depreciation.

That is not so for two reasons. First, the Government have excluded provision for one of the most frequent bands of car engine size—the range between 1,600 cc and 2·5 litres. By excluding that, many hon. Members will find that they can go for greater engine capacity without raising their costs anything like as much as the increase in the allowance they will be able to reclaim. That is why I tabled the amendment, which is designed to create an additional band covering a widespread and common size of family car. Last night I looked around the Car Park and found only two or three cars of the 39p category and about 20 cars in the middle band that I am describing.

Secondly, the higher mileage figure worked out in the RAC scales derives primarily not from higher petrol or running costs but from the higher depreciation of cars with a large engine capacity. It is clear from the RAC tables that the depreciation element makes up the larger part of the cost. An hon. Member can avoid that depreciation element if he buys a large but old car. The rate of depreciation on large old cars is minimal. An hon. Member could move into the higher-rate band at minimal increased cost and automatically become entitled to reclaim a vastly larger sum.

Does it mean that there will be no incentive to keep a smaller car?

That is exactly my point. I wish to provide hon. Members with an incentive to do what I hope the whole nation will do, which is to run cars that are energy efficient, do not consume unnecessary amounts of petrol and are reasonable for the job to be done, whether to be driven around by a Member of Parliament, to transport the family or for any other purpose.

When the hon. Gentleman takes into account depreciation and repair costs, perhaps he should also take into account the safety factor. Does he agree that there is a direct correlation between the number of miles driven in any year and the likelihood of becoming involved in an accident? Is he further aware that for some years statistics have shown that those who drive a higher-capacity car tend to have a greater survival rate than do those who drive a lower-capacity car?

The hon. Gentleman produces a mine of statistics. I wish to encourage hon. Members not to drive in motor cars any more than they need to. There are several reasons why the Government's proposals will encourage hon. Members to drive more than they need to. If we produce an enormous differential between what can be reclaimed by driving a car and by travelling by public transport, as these proposals would, it becomes likely that hon. Members will increasingly travel in cars, partly to reclaim the greater costs, as the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said. It is injurious to Members' health to travel excessively in cars. Those of us who are forced, by the distances involved in constituency travel, to drive a great deal from late night meetings know how difficult and dangerous that is and how easily one can become so tired as to drop off to sleep behind the wheel. Hon. Members should be given every available incentive to travel by public transport wherever possible.

The banding system proposed by the Government in an attempt to increase accountability and to maintain simplicity is wrong and will penalise those who make the sensible decision to have a medium-sized car that does not have high petrol consumption. The Government and the House, which in the end will take the decision, should set an example to the nation by saying, "We shall not devise systems that encourage hon. Members to buy bigger, gas-guzzling cars." Hon. Members may have reasons for buying bigger and higher engine capacity cars—that is their business—but it would be a great mistake for us to provide a system which penalises those who do not buy such cars.

An alternative which the Government could have accepted would be to accept the review body's original recommendations, have the 39p as an absolute maximum and hope that hon. Members would not rush to claim the maximum figure. Another advantage of that is that the system being proposed will be expensive to operate. The banding system and the need to submit much more complicated forms will cause much bureaucracy; indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to say that it would require about three more members of staff in the Fees Office, at a cost of about £20,000 a year, to carry out that work. I have some sympathy with the Government's belief that they had to go further to ensure that justice is seen to be done and that there is no possibility of claiming at the wrong rate, but I believe that the banding system is wrong.

What are the possibilities? We could return to the flat rate, retain the system that we have now and work from the top Civil Service rates and, if the Government believe it right to do so, we could choose a suitable cut-off point to move to a lower rate at which the depreciation arid standing charges are reasonably met. That would be a different rate from the Civil Service rate, because we are talking not about mileage allowance but about a car that is mainly, or even entirely, used for parliamentary activities. In many ways, that is the most attractive possibility, which is why I am tempted to throw out this proposal and to retain the present scheme, which is closer to most of the schemes in other public services, much easier to understand and explain and less expensive to administer.

However, if we must have this scheme — there is some chance that it will be passed by the House today—we must amend it so as to provide a reasonable basis for those who use medium-sized family cars to be able to claim at a reasonable rate and not to be given an incentive to claim at a higher rate. That is the precise purpose of my amendment, which draws upon the same RAC table but takes the next band down in that table. The figure of 29p is drawn by using the same calculation as the Government made to obtain the 39p figure. The Government took two bands and averaged them out to produce a much larger middle band. In doing so, they placed those who use normal family cars at a serious disadvantage.

Were we to pass my amendment, those who believe that it is essential for hon. Members to have larger cars and to be able to claim at the higher rate will not be prevented from doing so; but those hon. Members in the widespread category that I mentioned will retain a reasonable basis on which to run their cars. If the Government rely on the RAC figures, they must accept the evidence of those figures—that it costs about 29p a mile to run a car of that size. If we accept the banding scheme with a rate as high as 39p, we must amend it so as to remove the incentive to move into the higher bracket. That is a reasonable proposal, and the Leader of the House said in his opening speech that he had no objection in principle to the proposal. He believed that an extra band would add a further complication. I believe that the added complication would provide something more like rough justice. The original supposed justice of the scheme is much too rough for my liking.

I would much rather that we abandoned this proposal and returned to the flat-rate scheme which the House has operated for some years and which is more reasonable. But if that does not happen, the House must take the precaution of amending the Government's scheme to ensure that it does not encourage hon. Members to buy cars which consume more petrol and which they otherwise would not buy.

I agree with most of what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, but I wish to address myself to another matter.

For my money, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is the most intelligent as well as the most agreeable member of the Cabinet; and, to do him justice, he looked properly shamefaced when he introduced this nonsensical proposal this morning. I am talking only about the car allowances, and I shall deal briefly with one aspect of them, which is the arbitrary limitation, first, to 20,000 miles, after which a reduced allowance becomes payable—I do not object to that—and thereafter to 25,000 miles, after which every hon. Member is expected to account in detail for every mile that he travels on constituency work.

That is the most lunatic proposal that has been put before the House for a long time. What possible justification can there be for taking no account of the distance of an hon. Member's constituency from London, or of the size of his constituency? I am among those who will be fairly hard hit by the proposal, in that my consituency is 250 miles from London. Therefore, just by travelling backwards and forwards to my constituency on at least 40 weekends a year I clock up 20,000 miles before I even start to travel in my constituency.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will clarify this if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the mileage between London and one's constituency does not count as part of the mileage because it is allowable anyway.

I wish that my hon. Friend was right, but my understanding is that travel between London and one's constituency is included in the 20,000 miles and the 25,000 miles. My case is nowhere near as bad as that of some of my colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson)—who was here earlier but who, presumably, is unable to stay—and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Harvey), who could not cover their constituencies adequately unless they travelled at least 300 or 400 miles every weekend. I am sure that were it not for his ministerial duties my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who represents Shropshire, North, would make equally frequent visits to his constituency. When he was in opposition he was well known for the assiduity with which he visited and travelled round his constituency. Therefore, he must feel as strongly as I do that the proposition is absurd.

It is suggested that if we travel more than 25,000 miles a year we are somehow under suspicion of fiddling our travel expenses and we are required to account for each mile that we travel. Therefore, we come under pressure to make those journeys by train. It is a good idea to use public transport as much as possible, but again we run into a snag. My wife and I am sure the wives of many other hon. Members work almost as hard in the constituency at weekends as do hon. Members, but wives are limited to 15 trips a year on travel warrants. Last year I fell foul of that system. My wife had made 16 trips to my constituency by train, and I had already covered 28,000 miles by car. Once again, I had to pay for one of my wife's trips.

I do not complain about that, but I think it is absurd that there should be any limitation on the number of trips that a wife can make per year to the constituency as against the nine trips a year which a secretary is apparently allowed to make to the constituency—a privilege of which not many hon. Members will feel obliged to take advantage—so something seems to have gone wrong there.

It seems to me that some account must be taken both of the distance of an hon. Member's constituency from London and of his need to travel within that constituency each weekend. The present formula takes no account of that. This is one of the most stupid motions to come before the House for a very long time.

I am pleased to intervene in the debate to support the amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) moved with great clarity and force.

This is an argument of immense importance. Over the five years that I have been here I have come to the view that this place is in need of fundamental reform in a number of ways, of which Members' allowances are one small but very important part. Unless we undertake some of these reforms we are in danger of being seen as less and less relevant in the eyes of the public.

A political system can be almost anything. It can be good or bad, honest or dishonest, right or wrong, but it cannot afford to be irrelevant. As it is seen to be less and less relevant, so it declines in importance, and so people tend not to take notice of it.

The allowances are important in all this. When I arrived here, like most other hon. Members I spent the first month or so trying to find any desk on which I could squat and put my papers. I was obliged to move them round from time to time, from place to place, until I was given one of the desks in the Cloisters below the House. The Cloisters are quite a nice place to be in terms of being central, but that corridor is totally inadequate as an office. One of the first disadvantages to strike me was that if I wanted to hang up a calendar I had to drill a hole in what I assumed was a 17th century wall. What became much more important was trying to run a sensible office system from there when there were many hon. Members lined up in the corridor, people passing to and fro along the corridor and groups of people having conversations there. I was supposed to run my office and my constituency and other work from that desk. It was utter nonsense.

As I became more involved in the politics of Northern Ireland, in 1980 and 1981, I began to take a more active interest in the prison system. I found, as a former probation officer, that that was relevant to my work. I knew when I came here that the general back-up support for Members of Parliament was bad. I also knew that the support services that I would get were far less and more useless than I had ever experienced in probation work or in a number of other jobs of that nature.

When the hunger strike and the dirty protest were well established in Northern Ireland and I became more and more involved, I found myself having telephone conversations from my desk in this public corridor with groups of people standing around when I was discussing matters with a considerable security content. At one stage when I was planning a visit to Portlaoise prison in Dublin, which was also dealing with a dirty protest at the time and had experienced circumstances similar to those which had led to the hunger strike in the Maze prison, I had a number of conversations with the Irish embassy about my proposed visit. I became more and more concerned about the security aspects of that, and I was aware that literally groups of people were overhearing my conversations. I got to the stage where the embassy was telephoning me and I was telling the caller to ring off so that I could go upstairs to an ordinary telephone box to phone him back.

I put it to the House that that is a disgrace. It is totally unacceptable in any modern democratic political system that we behave in that way. At the end of the day, we all know it. Unless we are prepared to provide good services we shall go on appearing to be irrelevant to the majority of people, and that is particularly dangerous.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea proposed the increase to £17,000, he spoke about the wages for two people — a research assistant and a personal assistant. I cannot remeber the full total that I pay my own personal assistant, including national insurance contributions, but it works out at about £8,000 per annum. With her qualifications and experience she could earn more elsewhere. If I am then to use some of the modern equipment that I should like to use and have just invested in in the form of an Apricot computer, I shall have cut out any real chance of having a research assistant at all. I have spent £3,500 on a computer system which makes a lot of sense in terms not only of a limited word processing facility but of a filing system which enables me eventually, when I can afford to buy the other part of the equipment, to call up files when I am in my constituency so that I can deal with the sorts of problems that my hon. Friend described so vividly rather than saying that I shall deal with them when I get back to the House, write a number of letters, and all the other time-consuming and wasteful ways of dealing with these matters.

So what do I do about research? Again, as my hon. Friend pointed out with clarity and force, I rely a great deal on the Library, but the Library cannot be asked to do the detailed work which is required, so I rely on individuals, and again I have been extremely fortunate in that a number of people have volunteered their services. For the past month or two I have had a man who is highly qualified but unemployed, despite his qualifications and an extremely good university reference. Until he gets a job he is working for me for nothing, simply because I cannot afford to pay him. Because I have already almost accounted for my allowance over the full year taking into account the salary of my personal assistant and the computer software costs, there is no chance of my paying him other than his expenses to and from work.

No modern nation of any significant size would tolerate for long a system as daft as this. Why we are bothering about the car allowance — and I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) — when we have not even got the basic expenses right, I do not know. I suppose that I have an environmental advantage in that I walk nearly everywhere in my constituency, but it is a London constituency, and a small one, so that is a special case. We are concentrating on a minor part of the problem when the essence of it is the lack of resources to do the job properly. We cannot go on like this if we are to be taken seriously by the public. It is no wonder that Members of Parliament lack the effective power and influence that they should have.

In a good parliamentary system the Back Benchers should be a real power house within their parties and their constituencies. Comparing the role of Members of Parliament in this part of the 20th century with that in the last century, we see clearly that they have lost power and influence. One of the reasons is that the resources to do the job properly are no longer available to them. The circumstances have changed in such a significant way that the people who have control of information are in a powerful position. Unless we have similar access to information and similar back-up and support, we shall not be able to do our job as we should in any mature and responsible democracy.

I do not believe that the Leader of the House is unsympathetic to what I am saying. I ask him to think again about the figure suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea as the very minimum. There is no reason why a Member of Parliament should be without a proper office, properly equipped, and two employees. That should be the minimum available to Members if they want it. I know that some hon. Members feel that it is not necessary, and I understand that, but they do not have to take it. I shall not insist that they take it, and nor will anyone else, but that is the minimum that should be made available.

One of the problems of the House, especially because it grew up and became so successful in the last century, is that it is still seen as a part-time occupation, with hon. Members coming here in the afternoons and evenings to decide the affairs of state, having performed their normal jobs in the mornings. That is no longer relevant in the second half of the 20th century. The danger is that those who have an office as a result of their solicitor's or business practice feel that they do not have the same need for secretarial and other back-up facilities that full-time Members need. If a Member does not have his own office, that option is not available to him. That is another basic and important fact which the Government need to take into account.

From occasional conversations with new Conservative Members, it appears that a growing number recognise that point. I ask Conservative Members to respond to that over a period. I know that some of them are doing so, and the more who do so the better. We cannot go on with 19th century practices in the second half of the 20th century and expect to continue to be seen as relevant to the needs of Britain.

I, too, shall address my remarks to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs). As one of the newer Conservative Members, I am wholeheartedly in favour of it. Not only is the time of night of the previous debate relevant, but so is the fact that some 25 per cent. of hon. Members at that time were so busy trying to find a secretary and an office, and to decide how to use the allowance, that they did not have a great deal of time to decide what size that allowance should be.

Now, with the benefit of a year's experience in this place, I find it appropriate to consider the size of the research and secretarial allowance. It has become apparent over that year that support is extremely limited. I go beyond saying that it is extremely limited, and say that A is absurdly constraining. It makes Parliament and the service given to hon. Members a laughing stock not only in Britain but to anyone from abroad. I would not argue for the sort of support that American Congressmen receive, but there must be a happy medium between the two, and we are a long way off it at the moment.

Out of the four areas of support for a Member, there is the car allowance which we are debating today, the salary — not least the salary — the cost of living allowance, and the secretarial and research allowance. The latter is the one part of the benefits available to hon. Members that gives no direct benefit to the Member. That is important because any extra penny that is added to that allowance goes directly to aiding our constituents and the way in which we do our job in our constituencies. We do not benefit from it one iota and it is right that we should not. The recent changes making salaries payable through fees makes sure that does not happen. For that reason, any increase that we can vote in the allowance will be completely acceptable to the public and to our constituents.

There are three constituent parts to the secretarial and research allowance. For me, and I think for the majority of hon. Members, the main part goes to paying for a full-time secretary in London. That point was recognised by Plowden in the top salaries review when he said that Members need the back-up of a quality private secretary. Therefore, we have to have an allowance in order to pay a salary commensurate with that quality.

Hon. Members also need someone in the constituency. If, like myself, an hon. Member has an inner city constituency, the constituency office receives constant demands. Literally hundreds of callers arrive there, and the phone rings continuously. Where, as in my constituency, there are many people from the ethnic minorities who have a greater proportion of problems than others, there is a heavy work load. Therefore, it is important that there is provision for secretarial allowance to provide for adequate back-up in the constituency.

It is not good enough that the service that we give our constituents at constituency level depends on the contributions raised by the voluntary efforts of members of our political parties. They are raising money not for that purpose, but to fight elections and to campaign. They should not have to raise money to provide a service to our constituents. That money should be provided by the secretarial allowance.

Another part of the secretarial and research allowance that has already been touched on by the hon. Member for Battersea is the research element. I decided that my £12,000 should be concentrated on employing a full-time London secretary and to provide help in my constituency office, but it means that I have nothing left towards providing research assistance. The only way for me to obtain research assistance is from the Library and through the voluntary work done mainly by foreign students. I know that the use of foreign students may not be entirely acceptable to some hon. Members, but I have found their work to be of a high standard. I have to rely on their services to provide the research back-up for my work as an hon. Member. They are an important element in our lives. They help us to keep in regular communication with our electorates and in the work that we do in the House in contributing to debates. Many would also like to think that eventually they contribute through that to the quality of legislation passing through the House. Again, it is patently absurd that as legislators we should have to rely on voluntary work by foreign students to enhance our work. We need proper full-time help. Certainly we need some proper qualified research assistance, and an allowance should be available for that.

Another element that has been raised is perhaps a newer dimension in terms of the history of this place, and that is the plethora of modern equipment that is now available to assist us with our work. The £12,000 that we currently receive probably allows us to meet two of the three or four aspects of our work. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea would increase the allowance to £17,000. That is a somewhat arbitrary figure, given that the Plowden report recommended £13,000 plus £1,000 for equipment. However, it would be a helpful step forward in ensuring that hon. Members have quality support in their constituency, in London and in their research. We owe it to our constituents to provide just that support.

Although I was elected a year ago at the same time as a number of Conservative Members—rather too many of them—and some Labour Members, I have still not recovered from my initial shock at the appalling working conditions that Members of Parliament have to endure in this place. Visitors, and indeed many hon. Members, may admire the many marble statues that we have around, the wonderful neo-Gothic design of Pugin, Barry's architecture and the majesty of Westminster hall, but behind that elegant facade there lurks a legislative slum.

Downstairs in the Cloisters, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) described, Members work under conditions that defy all the office and factory legislation. The Cloisters is nothing more than a fancy name for a corridor, and hon. Members might care to reflect on the fact that it is a fire trap. In the event of that unhappy eventuality, I suggest that there would probably have to be a mini-general election because of the vacancies that would arise. I hope that, if there is a fire, it is not on our side of the corridor.

The Palace of Westminster is a seedy, rundown and thoroughly useless working environment.

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate is about the secretarial and research allowance, not about facilities in the Palace.

If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, it is about the allowance and about the working conditions that are linked to it.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one way to solve our problems would be for us to take over the GLC building?

I have alway suspected that that was one of the main reasons why the Government wanted to abolish the GLC.

Order. We are getting on to a tack which it would be unwise to follow.

It was also suggested that county hall should be turned into a hotel for rich American visitors. That proposal was made in 1892 and no doubt—

Order. We must get back to the subject of the debate.

I was trying to talk us through to the statement, Mr. Speaker.

I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement on the talks which took place in Berne on 18 and 19 July between British and Argentine representatives.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have consistently made clear to the House, we are not prepared to discuss with the Argentine Government the question of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. But it is plainly in our own interests, as well as those of Argentina and of the Falkland Islanders, that we should move towards more normal relations between Britain and Argentina. We therefore sought, in exchanges through the protecting powers over many months, to establish an agreed basis for talks which would achieve that end.

After careful and detailed discussions, a clear basis was agreed which would enable talks to take place. It was, of course, very clear to us that if the talks were not to founder at the outset on the issue of sovereignty, any such arrangements needed above all to meet the different positions of the two sides on that question. Accordingly, the specifically agreed arrangement on that point was that if the Argentine representatives raised the subject of sovereignty, as they clearly wished to do, the British representatives would make it quite clear in reply that we were not prepared to discuss it. Discussion would then move straight on to practical issues of concern to both sides and would continue on those subjects. This basis was plainly agreed and clearly understood by the Argentine Government. This arrangement was also confirmed by the Swiss Government.

When the talks opened in Berne, the British side complied scrupulously with this arrangement. As foreseen, the Argentines began by raising the question of sovereignty. We replied by making it plain, again as foreseen, that we were not prepared to discuss it. We went on to suggest a number of practical issues—such as the resumption of normal commercial and financial relations, the restoration of the air services agreement between Britain and Argentina and a visit by Argentine next-of-kin to the Falkland Islands—on which there could be some prospect of agreement.

We regarded this as the best way to start restoring confidence between Britain and Argentina, but the Argentine representatives were not prepared to continue the talks on this basis, although it had been agreed in advance. They argued that discussion of any of the practical issues put forward by the British side would have to be linked to discussion of a mechanism to address the question of sovereignty. Unless this new condition was met the Argentines were not prepared to continue the talks. This was totally at variance with the agreed basis and the talks thus came to an end.

Her Majesty's Government continue to take the view that it is in the interests of all concerned to seek the restoration of more normal relations between Britain and Argentina. I am sure that the House will share my sense of regret and frustration that, after many months of careful preparation, the Argentine Government brought the talks to an abrupt and premature end by failing to proceed upon the basis that had been clearly agreed.

I strongly support the Foreign Secretary's final words that it is

"in the interests of all concerned to seek the restoration of more normal relations between Britain and Argentina."

Like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I deplore the breakdown of the talks and share the sense of regret and frustration that has followed so many of his recent initiatives.

I warned the Foreign Secretary some time ago that the long delay in opening direct talks with the new democratic Government in Argentina might mean that Britain had missed the bus, and so it appears to have proved. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether it is really the case, as reported in several British newspapers this morning, that the breaking point was the refusal of the Government to say that they were not yet prepared to discuss sovereignty—that the word "yet" was the breaking point? I hope that the Foreign Secretary will recall that it is unwise ever to use the word "never" in matters of this nature. He may recall the experience of one of his predecessors, Lord Colyton, in using the word "never" in the context of a Cyprus settlement.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not feel that it would have been much wiser to take the advice of his immediate predecessor, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), who told the Select Committee on 11 June:

"It would be wrong to close the door on any option"

and that we must

"get back to a position where"

sovereignty

"could be discussed."

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman seriously consider changing the basis on which the Government have so far sought to open discussions with the Argentines, recognising what everybody in the world knows to be the case — that some time or other the question of sovereignty will have to be discussed between the British Government and the Government of Argentina?

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's support for my general statement of the position, although I regret that he succumbed once again to the temptation to couple it with a cheap and unworthy observation.

I repudiate absolutely the suggestion that there was any long delay in these matters on our part. I remind the House: that the Government have, from an early stage, taken a series of steps designed to move towards the restoration of normal relationships. In July 1982 we lifted the exclusion zone and replaced it with a protection zone. In September 1982 I initiated negotiations at the IMF to end financial restrictions. We have supported five European Community Presidency approaches to suggest the normalisation of economic and commercial relations. In May last year we proposed the restoration of the air services agreement. We have made it clear on a number of occasions that we are prepared to accept suitably prepared visits by bona fide relatives under Red Cross auspices.

Following the October elections we welcomed the return of democracy in Argentina, and on 10 December my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent a message to President Alfonsin on his inauguration. In January this year we sent the first of a series of messages which initiated the months of subsequent negotiations to establish a mutually acceptable basis for official talks on the normalisation of relations.

We have always made it clear that we are not prepared to negotiate sovereignty. However regrettable it may seem from many points of view, the Argentines have to live with the consequences of the fact that they used force and invaded, at a time when we were negotiating on that question in good faith. The war and the casualties on both sides changed attitudes in Britain and in the Falkland Islands.

It was for all those reasons that we took such care to approach the business of restoring confidence between the two countries on a basis which could start with modest, practical, useful measures. That is what we thought we had secured and agreed—that is what we had secured and agreed — and I very much regret the fact that these events—

What about the word "yet"?

Order.

rose—

Order. There is no "injury time" for the previous debate, which must end after three hours. Therefore, I propose to allow questions to go on until 11.20.

What about the word "yet"?

Order.

We do not want to descend into mutual recrimination, so is there any way in which the intermediary in organising the talks can express a view on why there has been, to put it no higher, a misunderstanding? Or has there been a deliberate change of policy by President Alfonsin since the talks began? Can my right hon. and learned Friend suggest any other avenues which could be pursued in seeking the desirable objective that he has outlined?

I do not think that anyone but the Argentine Government could cast light on the reasons for what has happened. There is no doubt that the basis for the talks to commence and to continue was plainly agreed. Equally, there is no doubt that that basis was not, in the event, fulfilled. We can only speculate on why and in what circumstances there appears to have been a change of heart by the Argentines. Obviously, as I have said, we still wish to make progress towards the restoration of normal relations, but we shall need to assess carefully the implications of the attitude displayed yesterday by the Argentines, which caused the breakdown.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that we on this Bench support the Government's refusal to discuss or negotiate the sovereignty of the Falklands? Does he agree that, whether in the south Atlantic or nearer home, any sort of intrigue will always perish on the question of which nation the citizens wish to belong to?

In the presence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I hesitate to extend the range of my responsibilities. However, I acknowledge that there is certainly some truth in the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Double talk apart, by "discussing sovereignty" does not Argentina mean the transfer of sovereignty? Was my right hon. and learned Friend not quite right, therefore, to take the stand that he did, while wishing — as we all do — for an improvement in relations? Does not the unreasonable attitude of Argentina suggest that even the present Argentine Government have to defer to aggressive elements in Argentina?

Plainly, the word "sovereignty" in this context implies the transfer of sovereignty. That is the point that has been expressed by the Argentines on many occasions. It is also clear that the Argentine Government's attitude and performance must have been influenced by some of the factors that my hon. Friend has in mind.

Who authorised the wrecking statements by Sir Rex Hunt before the conclusion of the talks? Did the Prime Minister know? Has not President Alfonsin taken great political risks with his infant democracy? Are we not playing into the hands of a better armed Argentine military? Is the article on the front page of The Sunday Times of last week to be believed when it speaks about Argentine missiles being put in position, with the possibility of an attack on our forces?

When the Foreign Secretary says that we should pause and reflect, are we also to pause and reflect on the £3 million a day at least which, according to The Sunday Times, is being spent on the Falklands, and, if so, for how long?

Briefly.

How can we expect the Argentines to agree to the normalisation of air services and trade if the Government do not make promises on the sovereignty issue? Can we then sensibly expect them to be assured that we speak on sovereignty—

Order. The hon. Gentleman will have heard what I said about the time available for questions. He has already asked more than three questions.

rose—

Order. I think that is enough.

The statements of Sir Rex Hunt were made to explain to the Falkland Islanders that there was no change in the frequently expressed position of Her Majesty's Government about negotiations on sovereignty. That newspaper report about missiles—

Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman know?

That newspaper report about missiles had nothing whatever to do with this matter. The talks broke down because the Argentines were not willing to talk about the normalisation of relations without linking that question to the issue of sovereignty.

May I first congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on arranging the talks in Berne? It shows a flexibility on the part of the British Government which we had been led not to expect. Will he reassure the House that he is not being too rigid about the discussions on sovereignty? Clearly, negotiations could take place by simply listening to the Argentine position, while not negotiating sovereignty. Will he reassure us that he is not being rigid in a strict interpretation of those words?

There is no question of rigidity or intransigence on this issue. As a matter of plain common sense, at this stage—a little more than two years after the unjustified invasion of the Falkland Islands, which took place in the midst of negotiations in good faith on the very question of sovereignty—our position must be as I have stated it, that we are not prepared to negotiate about that. Given that, our position equally—as the House will recognise — must be to try to find a way of identifying other topics on which talks can commence leading towards the restoration of normal relations. It was precisely with those factors in mind that, over months, we negotiated to get a clear framework agreed which would allow talks to commence. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said about the flexibility implied in that approach. I am sure he shares my regret that it did not lead to a more successful outcome.

Does the Foreign Secretary's experience of negotiations not lead him to recognise that they are never likely to succeed if one of the subjects of greatest interest to one side is wholly excluded from the discussions? Has the Prime Minister so little faith in her negotiating team that she cannot rely on it to uphold the essential interests of the Falkland Islanders while the issue of sovereignty is featured in those discussions?

My experience of negotiations leads me to recognise precisely that point. Indeed, it was for that very reason that we recognised that it would not be fruitful or helpful to see—as the hon. Gentleman puts it — that sovereignty was wholly excluded. We arrived at those arrangements so that the question should be raised, so that our response should be anticipated and understood and so that the parties could then move on to measures designed to begin rebuilding confidence. It was precisely with that point in mind that we reached those arrangements, and that is why I regret the outcome.

May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the formula that was used to get the talks going in Berne, which at that stage seemed to be perfectly sound and sensible? Does he agree that there is far more that unites our two democracies than divides them, and that both countries could gain tremendously from proper co-operation in the south Atlantic? During the summer, will he have a real go to explain to those on the Falkland Islands that the present position is artificial and that they will gain from closer co-operation between Britain and the Argentine?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. As I said in my statement, it was because we believed that progress towards the normalisation of relations was in the interests not only of the United Kingdom and the Argentine but of the Falkland Islanders that we set about the matter in the way that my hon. Friend has commended.

May I also welcome the fact that the precedent of direct talks has now been established? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, although the initial formula for dealing with sovereignty seems to have failed, there are other mechanisms—such as those that I have suggested to his Department — for sidelining the question of sovereignty and so on, which might be considered?

As President Alfonsin did us the honour of sending a message containing the British proverb

"Where there's a will there's a way",

will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind a good Scottish saying, which Robert the Bruce learnt from the spider,

"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again"?

That is what Neville Chamberlain said.

I fancy that there is a rather larger Welsh than Scottish community in Argentina, but I cannot instantly commend any Welsh proverb to the House. However, I shall certainly bear in mind the approach suggested by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). The failure of our approach, after so much effort had been put into it, is bound to influence the way in which we look at the matter in future. We had designed a method which took account of the interests of both sides, but we shall obviously need to assess carefully the implications of the Argentine attitude, which led to the breakdown of the talks.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue undiscouraged in his attempt to find the philosopher's stone and a solution which will at the same time safeguard the long-term interests of the Falkland Islanders and take account of the extreme fragility of the democratic Government in Argentina? The Argentine Government are threatened by military hard men who would like to reassert hard-line Argentine policies towards the Falklands.

I accept the encouragement given by my hon. Friend. One of the points that we made in our discussions with the Argentines is that, although the present Argentine Government were not responsible for what happened just over two years ago, they have to live with the consequences of that action. Of course, one recognises the importance of the establishment and maintenance of democratic government in Argentina in the context of the entire history of that country.

Did not the talks really collapse because if they start involving the question of sovereignty the cripplingly expensive Fortress Falklands policy, which exists mainly to bolster the Prime Minister's image, will be shown for the nonsense that it is? Is it not a fact that no agreement with Argentina will ever be reached as long as the Prime Minister continues in office?

So far as I can detect, the hon. Gentleman made two separate observations, both of which are completely invalid. They have nothing to do with the subject. All questions of sovereignty were deliberately and carefully put to one side in the formula that we designed. This series of talks has come to an end because of the Argentine's failure to follow the agreed formula.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, while the Argentine Government are completely to blame for this breakdown after such careful preparations—he has handled this matter with great skill — none the less, this is a tremendous tragedy? This country and democratic Argentina should have well-developed friendly relations. There are 180,000 people of United Kingdom origin in Argentina who want desperately to see a solution to all these problems. There is no question of conceding the idea of the transfer of sovereignty if, in due course but not now, the subject of sovereignty is on the agenda if the Argentines wish to raise it.

I fully share my hon. Friend's views about the desirability of restoring more normal relations for human, social, commercial, economic and political reasons with the people and the democratic Government of Argentina. It was for that reason that we took so much care to allow the subject of sovereignty to be raised and to allow our response, as well and frequently advertised, to be made. I am sorry that that formula did not lead us to the other subjects which would have taken us in the direction my hon. Friend has in mind.

Is the Foreign Secretary telling the House this morning that Great Britain will never discuss the problem of sovereignty with the democratic Government in Argentina? If not, will he now answer what I put to him in my opening question: why were the Government not prepared to add the word, "yet", or words such as, "now" or "at present", to the statement that they were not prepared to discuss sovereignty?

The Government were seeking, upon the basis of a plainly stated position—that we are not prepared to negotiate sovereignty—to find a basis from which we could move towards more normal relations. The talks which started on Wednesday broke down not because of the absence of any such word in the formula, but because the Argentines, unfortunately, were not prepared to talk about normalisation without a linkage with sovereignty.

I shall wait for the task force to disappear before resuming my speech.

I was trying to point out a little earlier that the working environment in this place militates against hon. Members doing an efficient and proper job for their constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith described most graphically the circumstances under which he found himself working in the Cloisters where there is no privacy, and where clearly hon. Members cannot have discussions on the telephone with constituents or others. That leads to the subject of provision for our staff. There are no facilities in the Cloisters, for example, for additional staff. I work in a small room in the Cloisters. I suppose that I should be grateful for the fact that I am in a room rather than in an open corridor, but there are four desks crammed in that room.

The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) who questioned me about county hall might be interested to know that there are larger lavatories in county hall than there are rooms in the Cloisters in which we work. If the Government turn those lavatories into offices, I can think of a few suitable candidates on the Conservatives Benches to use them.

Members of Parliament do not rate highly in the public sympathy stakes. We did ourselves a grave disservice when we came to the House immediately after the June election and had a full debate on our salaries. We inflicted something of a self-injury when we discussed those salaries without fully discussing resources. We voted ourselves — not all of us but collectively — salary increases at the expense of our staff. That was disgraceful. Of all people, politicians should be aware of the need for good timing, if nothing else.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the main problem in that debate in July after the independent suggestion made in June before the election was that everyone had agreed that this time round there would be no tampering with the independent recommendation? That was solemnly agreed in writing, as opposed to many occasions recently when frustrating results were produced. Bearing in mind that most other Parliaments have an automatic mechanism for increasing salaries which is outside the control of their Members, does he agree that that is the line along which we should proceed?

I believe that we have it partially right now in so far as there will be a linkage with regard to pay. The timing was all wrong. The difficulties in which the Government no doubt felt themselves by accepting the full recommendations were enormous. That could clearly be understood.

We must address ourselves to how we appear to those outside this place. It did not look good, immediately after a general election, whatever the justifications, for us all to be talking about our pay and conditions. It would have been far better timed if that debate had taken place before the election. During the course of the election campaign, we could then have answered the points that would have arisen. It seemed as if Members of Parliament were, first and foremost, looking after their own interests.

We are not assisted by the press, which is always ready to make snide remarks about Members, some of which are perhaps justified, but many of which are not. Timing is of the essence, and I believe that the timing of our last debate was utterly wrong.

Unfortunately, because of that bad timing, we were unable to give close attention to what I believe to be the equally important matter of resources and facilities necessary to enable hon. Members to do their job properly.

Before my election to the House, I worked for the Association of Broadcasting and Allied Staffs. I should have been appalled if I had gone to that job and been told that I would have £12,000 or whatever, but that I had to find my own secretary, office, office equipment and all the other things necessary to do the job. That is what happens to Members of Parliament. It is a crazy and downright inefficient way to work.

Many people do not know what happens to the £12,000 that we receive currently. Unfortunately, some seem to suggest that it is nothing more than an addition to salary. I should like to give the 1984 budget for my office. You will be relieved to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is relatively short.

My office is based in Newham, North-West because, as one of the Conservative Members said, all problems are in the constituency, I, therefore, want my office in my constituency. I have a full-time assistant working in that office. The salary and national insurance contributions come to £8,360. I pay the rent, rates, telephone and so on, which come to £2,400. I have a photocopier, and, with paper costs, that amounts to £433 a year. A further £1,500 goes on office equipment, secretarial help and helpers' expenses. That brings me to a total of £12,693. It goes well over our present limit. The balance comes from my salary. I am not complaining about that; I am just saying that even for the relatively modest effort I can put into my office in Newham, that £12,000 is woefully inadequate. My office has to deal with hundreds of constituency matters a month because of the problems of an inner city. We cannot cope unless we have more full-time staff.

I believe that it would be dangerous to give Members of Parliament a substantial increase in cash allowances for administrative expenses. It is well known that some Members use those allowances to supplement their own incomes. Perhaps they need to do so but it is wrong and it should not be condoned. Members should be able to select their own personal staff for all the obvious political reasons, but those staff should be on the payroll of the House. All Members should have separate offices. Perhaps we should make this place a museum and build a proper purpose-built legislature somewhere else, perhaps outside London, which would provide conditions that would enable Members to work properly.

I believe that each Member should be entitled to three staff workers, which would be a mixture of researchers and secretaries. All those workers should be on properly negotiated salary scales. There are strong moves within the House to have proper negotiations for individual workers who work with Members. The range of salaries paid varies enormously and I hope that Members will realise that trade union organisation is as relevant in this place to those who work for Members as it is to those outside.

Members should be able to claim separate expenses for a constituency office and full-time staff. The disposition of staff between Westminster and the constituency should be left to the individual Member.

All office equipment should be drawn from the House and returned to it when a Member leaves. It should not be paid for from an annual amount. There would be many advantages in operating such a system because the House could negotiate some advantageous prices for equipment and arrange service contracts.

I have done some costings that are based on a Member having three staff and the sort of equipment that I believe would provide an efficient office. That equipment would include a computer, a teleprinter and the most advanced technical equipment. The cost would be about £45,000 per Member. When that is multiplied by 650 the total is about £27 million. I understand that that is not a figure Members would be ready to receive as an amendment to the motion. Although it sounds rather large, I put the figure to the House because I believe it is a reasonable one if we are to enable Members to have the sort of offices that they should be running on behalf of their constituents.

I do not believe in fifth-form conspiracy theories, although there are many fifth formers on the Conservative Benches. There is clearly a breadth of feeling on both sides that one of the reasons for Members not being given adequate resources is that they would become far too troublesome to their own Front Benches. That can probably be said about both parties when in government. There is a constitutional theory that Members are here to control the actions of the Executive. That might be the constitutional theory, but we know it to be constitutional bull. Individual Members do not stand a dog's chance of controlling the Executive. However, efficient and well-supported Members could keep a Government on their toes. That is why successive Governments have denied us the opportunuty to operate effectively.

We claim to know how to run the country. A few more people might believe us if we proved that we knew how to run our own affairs more efficiently. I shall be supporting the amendment and I hope that it will be supported by Conservative Members. I give notice that there will be a great move within the House among Members on both sides to start increasing secretarial and research allowances to a level which will enable us to be effective in a modern legislature.

I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate, especially as new Members were almost frozen out of the debate that took place early in this Parliament on Members' salaries and allowances.

When I came to this place from industry, it was my wish and desire that my secretary, who had worked with me for many years, should come here. She was a highly paid and very efficient young lady. We could have just about managed to match her salary in industry, but when she saw the terms and conditions under which, and in which, she would have to work I was not able to persuade her that she could look forward to money and a lovely life in Parliament.

I feel sorry for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, because he has drawn a very short short straw. Newly elected Members arrived in this place 12 months ago and they were full of ideas. I remind the House of a well-known novel and film entitled "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". I am sure that all hon. Members will recall the plot; a perfectly sane person is taken into an asylum and he finishes up more mad than the original inmates. I give notice that I have no intention of becoming one of the cuckoos in that context.

It is right that Members should be allowed to express the view that we shall not put up with the terms and conditions which have prevailed historically in this place, especially when the specious argument is advanced that if we are dissatisfied there are thousands of others who want to come here to take our places. If that argument is taken to its illogical conclusion, we would come here without pay, and we would probably pay a premium to do so, as used to be the practice in solicitors' offices and in the theatre many years ago. That would be wrong and it is wrong that we support secretaries or research assistants out of our own pockets. The state should accept that duty and responsibility.

I spent 25 years in industry, not wishing to become a civil servant. I am now a Member of Parliament, and I still do not wish to become a civil servant. I do not wish to be in any way hogtied to the Civil Service's terms and conditions of employment. I do not see why my secretary has to be adjudicated against a secretary in the Civil Service. I know many people in the Civil Service, my son works in Whitehall, and I have not seen many secretaries in Whitehall working at 8 o'clock, 9 o'clock, 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock at night as many Members' secretaries do so that they can carry out our work more effectively.

Many of us have constituencies which are a long way from London. We have oriented far too much on London. All the thinking is done within London and most civil servants live in or near London. I find that there are few of them in my patch in the north-east of England.

Our role as Members is not that of Members before the war and it is not even that of Members immediately after the war. Our role nowadays is very different. I am asked frequently, now that I have been a Member for more than a year, "How do you find life being a Member? How do you like it? Are you enjoying it?" Various questions are asked, including, "What do you do?" I agree with Lord Peyton that there is no job description for a Member of Parliament. Some Members will do more than others. However, the tendency is to have more full-time Members who are devoted entirely to working for their constituency, constituents and party. If that is to be done properly when a Member represents a constituency that is a long way from London, it is necessary to have a constituency office that is manned properly. There are inconveniences, because it is not possible properly to monitor the local radio station or the local television station if one is domiciled here with a constituency 257 miles away, as mine is. That means that I have to pay someone to monitor for me. If I cannot afford to pay my secretary a proper wage to work with me in London, there is not a great deal of money left at the end of the day to pay someone to work for me in my constituency.

The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) mentioned advertising. We have our printing and stationery supplies. In many instances we have to pay for our postage, because we have to guard against overstepping a narrow line when we send out letters which could be judged politically wrong in the way we address people. Members of Parliament have to buy their own typewriters. I wonder how many civil servants have had to pay £1,000 to buy a typewriter for the secretaries in their offices anywhere around this area. I wonder how many of them have to pay an annual premium of approximately £100 to ensure that the typewriter is maintained and serviced properly. Typewriter ribbons have to be bought and Members must put up with the inconvenience of hiring a typewriter if their own goes wrong. No civil servant does that. Why should we be welded to the Civil Service in that way?

It has been suggested that 12 months ago we had a debate in which Members' salaries and allowances and car mileage were discussed. I believe that we should have had another debate along those lines today, but this debate is about only two elements, and not about Members' salaries. We shall be in an embarrassing position as long as we have to come to the Chamber time and time again to plead to do the job that we are expected to do. Often, members of the public are misled into believing that we have a great operation, with masses of secretaries and electronic back-up. A moment ago I was handed a piece of paper telling me that I had a telephone call to take outside. If I were in industry I would have a little bleeper, and that bleeper would have bleeped. I would have been able to make a telephone call and saved an earnest and nice gentleman from running around the whole place all day with bits of paper trying to find out whether I was here. I believe that the civil servants are against such small electronic aids and therefore do not allow us to have them.

I spent 25 years in industrial relations worried about terms and conditions of employment for all sorts of people. Little did I know that one day I would have to come here and make a special plea on behalf of my colleagues. I am in a slightly advantaged position in that I am the third oldest of the Members who were elected last year for the first time. I had retired before I became a Member of Parliament. That means that I am in an independent position and can say things which some of my younger hon. Friends cannot say without the embarrassment of making special pleadings.

It is wrong that we are debating the secretarial allowances as four fifths of one relevant percentage. Next year it will be five fourths of another relevant percentage, and the year after it may be two fifths of an irrelevant percentage. All the time we have this mumbo-jumbo which defies easy reading so that we can determine what our secretaries and research assistants should be paid and how many we should have. The amount paid should be adequate to enable the job to be done properly. I do not accept the argument put forward by one of my hon. Friends that we should not equate ourselves with the American Congress. Why not? England is the mother of Parliaments, and we should be in a position to give a lead to the American Congress. If it is right for Congress to have proper resources, it is right for us to have them as well.

Historically, wives of Members of Parliament were expected to react and act rather like vicars' wives and doctors' wives or any other lady in a similar position. They had to be working consorts, without individuality. That is wrong. Some Members' wives do many jobs in constituencies for which they are not remunerated or paid in the same way as doctors' wives. That aspect should be examined.

I did not agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when he said that he felt a great swell of feeling on this measure during the debate 12 months ago. What he felt by way of a swell was the Back Benchers saying, "We do not want what you are seeking to impose upon us. We did not ask you to go away and find something else to impose upon us. We told you that we did not want what you told us you would do." I believe that the same circumstances apply today, and that is evidenced by the number of hon. Members who have spoken or who wish to speak in this debate. We do not want this scheme, any more than we wanted the last scheme, because all these schemes are specious.

At the moment we have a relatively equitable position. I have not heard too many hon. Members complain about the present system. If there was that groundswell of feeling, then, like all the stories that one reads in the press so frequently, I have missed out. That is unfair to me as an individual. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will tell us his evidence, apart from the groundswell of revulsion against the Government's proposals 12 months ago, from Back-Bench or even Front-Bench Members on both sides of the House that they want a massive change in the way in which the car mileage system operates. I do not believe that there is that feeling. It is true that 12 months ago we rejected those proposals. This is another way of coming back at us and introducing proposals which we do not want.

I shall go into detail with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about his proposals. I suggest to him that if the House were mindful enough today to be silly and pass these proposals—I know that the "payroll" is here and not listening—we would do the wrong thing.

The motion refers to cars of

"1300 cc or less

More than 1300 cc and not more than 2300 cc

More than 2300 cc".

Mine is a 2·3 litre car, so I am at the top of the limit. The report recognised that fact and talked about 2301 cc or 1999 cc.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman checks his car carefully. He may find that it is 2299 cc. A great many cars are expressed in that way and fall just beyond the limits which the Government have proposed.

I am grateful for that intervention. I take as honest the figure written on the back of my car, which says 2·3 litres. I am sure that most right hon. and hon. Members would make exactly the same honest appraisal.

The real problem is that many British-made cars are expressed in that way. They say 1290 cc, and will come under the 1300 cc level. If one wanted to trade up, many might say that the best way—I do not agree—is to go for a Japanese car of 1400 cc and obtain the advantages of economy. In a sense, that might well be an incentive to buy non-British.

I take my hon. Friend's point. The serious element that I wished to point out is that those figures are specious and in many ways irrelevant. Car engines vary. Perhaps it would be better if we did not specify those figures.

My constituency is 257 miles away. It is a fairly large area, and my mileage for my first year as a Member of Parliament has been greater than 50,000 miles. That is not unusual. I identify those details only because I am more aware of the facts of the mileage I have done. Many of my colleagues represent constituencies in the north-east of England. I remind those responsible that beyond London are the north-east, the north-west, Scotland and other areas, and we should take them into consideration.

Cars depreciate very rapidly, and people doing the mileages to which I have referred need to change their cars frequently. I do not accept the argument that it is better to buy an older second-hand car, because the maintenance charges today are excessive.

We should not have to be involved with "bull rings," mileages and "specials". As I am no longer associated with industry, I do not put myself in the same category as, for example, salesmen working for Crosse and Blackwell or Mars. The most important thing that salesmen do every day is to work out their mileage and car allowances to submit to the sales manager. That is not the way in which I want to do my job as a Member of Parliament.

I cannot believe that it is seriously intended that when I leave my garage at my home in my constituency and drive the 11 miles to my constituency office I must on each occasion write it down, and then say whether I returned home immediately or called in at the Conservative club for a drink on the way back. Who knows whether that is parliamentary business? I might have been meeting some people on quite important business [Interruption.] Always drink and drive within the limit. [Interruption.] If I were drinking and needed to be driven, as I did last night—[Interruption.] Who pays the car allowance for the person who kindly gives one a lift in that context? Does one have to ask that person to lift up the bonnet of the car to find out the cubic capacity so that one can properly fill in the return and keep busy the bureaucrats who sit in the Fees Office working out exactly what hon. Members should or should not be putting in their mileage claims?

There is nothing in the provisions for car mileage allowance that should commend itself to any thinking Member of this House. Those who go into the Lobby to support the motion will not have thought about it; they will merely have gone into the Lobby because that is part and parcel of their job. Today we have a free vote—or so I am told. Let us see some hon. Members exercising their freedom of mind when going into the Lobbies.

I find myself in a very difficult position. I cannot support the amendment tabled by the Liberal party, because I do not think it is the right amendment. We should be opposing all the proposals and telling the Government not to put such proposals before the House. This is not what we want. We want to be treated as honourable Members of Parliament. We want to be given a mileage allowance with the least possible amount of bureaucracy when we submit our claims. We do not want to have to sit down with our diaries, stopwatches and log recorders, and then have to worry about which car had been used and on what day.

My hon. Friend argues that we shall have to sit down with our diaries and various other aids to work out our expenses under the proposed system. How does he work out his mileage without consulting his diary? Members have to work out roughly how many miles they travel in their constituencies. I set my trip meter and record the mileage in that way.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not appear to understand what is involved in the proposals. At present we have a form dealing with what might be called rough mileage. When we first come to this House, we go to the Fees Office and fill in a form to determine our exact mileage, so that in future we have only to say that we have made a journey from here to our home or to our constituency. It is the mileage within the constituency that is a matter of dispute or debate.

What will happen on the day when my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) forgets to set his trip meter? I am sure that he will guess the mileage, just as any other hon. Member would. His intervention underlines the fallacy of the proposals.

I hope that hon. Members will not support the motion dealing with the office, secretarial and research allowance. I hope that hon. Members will support the amendment, because at least it goes in the right direction, although not as far as I should like it to go.

I hope that hon. Members will not accept the proposals concerning car mileage allowance, because they are monstrous.

rose—

Order. I remind the House that the debate must finish at 12.38 pm

I hope that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) pays greater attention to detail in assessing his drinking limit when driving than he seems to have done in assessing the cubic capacity of his car. I would hate to find that he faces the same disappointment on the former as I know he will face on the latter when he looks at his log book.

I should like first to make a few comments on the motion concerning the Lord Chancellor's salary. I find it somewhat peculiar that the Leader of the House should be defending the preservation of those very traditional differentials that he, among others, berates trade unionists throughout the country for trying to preserve and observe. The Opposition will not oppose the motion. I only wish that the extra income to be paid to the Lord Chancellor could in some way be reflected by higher efficiency within his Department.

Not many people in this House realise the size of the Lord Chancellor's Department. The legal side of Civil Service activities absorbs twice as many civil servants as the old Department of Industry used to absorb—16,000 as compared with 8,000. If the Lord Chancellor's increase were reflected in efficiency, one would expect that perhaps the reply to the Commission on Legal Services would have emerged from that Department sooner than the four years that it took for the Government to respond to only half of the propositions that were within the commission's report.

We are being asked to vote extra money to a Minister who is not answerable to this House of Commons and is only vicariously answerable to it. The Attorney-General answers questions at the Dispatch Box allegedly on behalf of the Lord Chancellor, although the Attorney-General is not even in the same Department. Often he has to answer questions from hon. Members by saying that he will draw their comments to the attention of his noble and learned Friend.

If we are voting extra money for the Lord Chancellor, we should also try to ensure that there is a greater degree of parliamentary scrutiny. That could be done by the establishment of a Select Committee. That was at one time proposed but the proposition was carefully killed off. It is about time—I say this as a non-lawyer and I am sure that it is sacrilegious to lawyers in all parts of the House—that we reviewed the organisation within Parliament for dealing with our control and scrutiny of a critically important sector. I suspect that we have inherited a system that no longer matches the needs of this House in terms of parliamentary accountability.

I congratulate the Leader of the House on enabling us to have a debate on the office, secretarial and research allowance and the car mileage allowance at this time, when a considerable number of hon. Members have been able to take part. We have a tendency to want to discuss such matters sub rosa, and I can understand that. We know how embarrassing it is to have to come to this House continually to moan about our pay and about the expenses available for our secretaries and so on. At some stage, Government—of whichever party—will have to find a system that avoids the ritualistic nonsense that we find so embarrassing and leads to public misunderstanding. Sometimes that misunderstanding is fuelled by broadcasts made by hon. Members who seem to pursue publicity in these matters rather than being concerned with the accuracy of what they say.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), when I first came to the House my total territorial claim on its space was one of the little cupboards in the Corridor between the Members' Lobby and the Library of the House of Commons. My first desk was obtained by my having to squat on one of the tables in the Corridor above the Aye Lobby. Eventually, by established pattern, I was then able to persuade the Serjeant-at-Arms that, since I was there continually with my papers, I should be provided with a filing cabinet so that the cleaners could do their work properly. We have faced such nonsense as we have gradually evolved a more appropriate range of expenses and services for hon. Members.

The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to the Companies Acts. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) says that we are lucky to be here, and that it is an honour. Of course that is true, but it does not justify ignoring for ourselves and those who work for us the factory and office laws that we have passed for the rest of the community. No one is disputing our unique privilege to be here, however transient our stay. I say that as one who has always been in a marginal seat. However, we should not allow that to deflect our attention from the fact that while we are here we should try to do our job as effectively as possible and demand the services and facilities that enable us to do so on behalf of our constituents.

I support the move to link the rate of change of pay of our secretaries to the Civil Service, although I am not sure whether we are doing them a kindness. If they had had that linkage, our secretaries would have been worse off because in the past four years the Civil Service has seen its income rise by 20 per cent. less than the rise in the cost of living, whereas in general our secretaries have managed to keep in line with the rise in the the cost of living.

I support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs). I congratulate him, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Conservative Members who spoke in support of it. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea said—I am sure that he said it jocularly—that he suspected that there was collusion between the Front Benches to deprive the Back Benches of information and to ensure that Back Bench Members were so busy looking for information that they had no time to be mutinous towards the Front Benches. All that I can say is that if there has been such collusion and if that were the objective, it seems to have signally failed on both sides of the House.

As my hon. Friend rightly said, we as a Parliament work longer hours and have a longer parliamentary year than any other Parliament in the Western world. Our case load would not be accepted in many other Parliaments. The requirement of a researcher in addition to a secretary that my hon. Friend specified is not a particularly immodest request. I should have thought that it was almost a basic requirement. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the amendment not because it is necessarily the right figure, as my hon. Friend said, but because it shows that we as Members are determined to do properly the job for which we were elected and want the resources and facilities to enable us to do so.

If new Members do not stand up now and protest, they will become inured to the system and battle weary, like the Leader of the House and myself. After 20 years' struggling one eventually thinks that this is the norm and the way that things should be done. If one is not careful, one becomes romantically attached to surviving in deprivation when trying to do the work for which one is elected. We are asking not for pay for ourselves but for resources to do the job that we are here to do. It is encouraging to see so many new Members in the Chamber. I hope that while they still remember what civilised conditions in industry and commerce are like, they will strike a blow for not just this generation but future generations of hon. Members.

With regard to the car allowance, some hon. Members have said that the 39p a mile upper limit is high. When I look at the congestion in the Car Park, I think that it might be a better idea to have an extra category of offering hon. Members 50p a mile not to bring their cars here. I should like to canter a hobby horse of mine. Hon. Members should be warned that their passes are not an absolute privilege. Some hon. Members show scant regard for their colleagues by parking their cars so that they prevent others from moving theirs. They also give their passes to their secretaries, so that our floors become blocked up with their cars.

I understand, as the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said, that there is a dispute about whether we should have a single or a split rate. This is a personal view. It makes sense to try to relate the expenses paid to the cost that we incur. If we look at what is implicit in the scales, we see that the RAC is saying that it costs between 18p and 39p a mile to run a car. If there is such a range, it is unjustified to overpay some hon. Members by about 7p a mile, if we take the middle rate as the standard rate, while underpaying other hon. Members by 14p a mile. That does not make sense if we are trying to establish a logical basis for our costs and expenses.

There must be bands as the scheme has to be administratively workable, as the Leader of the House rightly said. The Fees Office has had to be closely consulted because eventually it will have to administer the system. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) seemed to fall into a logical trap. He felt that there was a temptation to hon. Members to move up market because there were three bands for cars, and his solution was to have four bands. All that does is put more people at the margin of a band. Many more people would find it to their advantage to change their car and shift from one band to another. I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman was trying to make, but his solution does not meet in any way the requirements that he is setting.

My preferred solution is not to proceed with the scheme at all, but, if we do, it would be unjust if it were not banded in something like the way that I suggest.

I do not see that the unjustice arises, but that is a personal view. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to express his concern on the matter in the Lobby.

The ceiling of 20,000 miles in respect of the allowance seems perfectly rational. The figures of 18p, 25·9p and 39p contain an element for depreciation. One reaches a stage where the mileage that one is doing more than covers the depreciation. We as Members of Parliament tend to drive abnormal mileages:in a year, so the RAC's assessment on a 10,000 mile basis would not be relevant to us because I doubt whether many hon. Members do as small a mileage as that.

Like the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), I have a constituency that is 200 miles away so that means that one often does a round trip of 400 miles in a single day. I do not go along with the argument that we should all be forced into using small cars. If we have to provide a bus service for ferrying our familes up and down the motorway, together with their luggage and the kitchen sink, it is for us to determine what car is appropriate for our work.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fatigue and safety factor should also be taken into account in deciding on the type of car needed for long-distance driving? Is he aware that research shows that the use of a larger capacity engine cuts fatigue and enhances safety in long-distance driving?

That is absolutely true. That is the ergonomics of car design. Larger cars are designed for long-distance travel. By driving to Swansea and back, I put in a full day's driving work in addition to my normal day's work. Other hon. Members have to drive even greater distances. If we undertake distances that lorry drivers must, not exceed and then begin a day's work on top of that, it is scarcely self-indulgent to wish to travel in comfort and safety.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) asked me to draw attention to the amendment in her name, which has not been moved but about which she has written to the Leader of the House. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will comment on that, as some hon Members recently made car purchase decisions before they became aware of the proposed changes in allowances.

In conclusion, there has been virtually unanimous support for the Opposition amendment to increase the secretarial allowance. I hope that we shall take that unanimity to its logical conclusion and walk together into the same Lobby on this non-party, House of Commons matter.

I find myself in some difficulty on this matter. One does not have to be old to be a rebel. It is just as easy when one is young. It is regrettable that every year we have to discuss whether sufficient finance is available. I should much prefer a linkage arrangement which could then be dealt with year by year along the lines of the Civil Service system.

I represent a marginal constituency, and I must confess that I find it difficult to cope within the £12,000 allowed for secretarial and research assistance. For some reason, I seem to attract 60 to 80 letters per day, so I need a full-time secretary. I appreciate that some hon. Members share secretaries because they cannot cope on the present allowance. That is very worrying. I should also like secretarial help in my constituency. I have an office there, but I do not have a secretary. I try to run things from here, but that is not satisfactory. The little help that I have in my constituency has to be paid for out of my salary. In passing, it should be made absolutely clear that the £12,000 is not an addition whacked on to our salaries. It has nothing to do with our salaries.

There is thus some attraction for me in the Opposition amendment to increase the secretarial and research allowance to £17,000. The danger about that is that if all that extra research assistance became available the Table Office would be inundated with additional written and oral questions, which is not the result that we seek. Many of us receive offers of research assistance from people at the universities, but the people whom one can really trust are surely those who work in the Library, which provides an excellent research service.

I am most concerned about how we should proceed and how to make ends meet. I understand that this is to be a free vote, but I noticed a fair proportion of the payroll vote outside the Chamber, so one may assume that the Government resolution will be passed and that at least an extra £437 will be available. Nevertheless, I hope that further improvements can be made. I do not think that every hon. Member should be entitled to an allowance of £17,000. It should be subject to full justification. Moreover, I believe that a certain sum should be set aside exclusively for secretarial help and another sum for research. Having been associated with research work in the House 10 years ago, I can confirm that there have been great improvements in research facilities, access to the Library, and so on. I recall that the payment in those days was scarcely rewarding, but that is no criticism of the Members concerned. The money was simply not available. The Opposition frequently accuse Conservative Members of having two jobs, but one can understand the reason, given the inadequacy of the current secretarial and research allowance.

There are major difficulties about the mileage allowance. As I have said many times, the House is the guardian of the public purse and we must not be seen to be taking advantage of a system from which people outside cannot benefit. I appreciate the intention behind the bandings proposed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I am not convinced that the aim will be achieved. The allowance will cover wear and tear on the particular type of car. I believe that this will encourage hon. Members to go for gas-guzzlers—to buy up rather than to buy down. As the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said, one needs a reliable vehicle for long journeys on motorways. Nevertheless, we should not encourage hon. Members to purchase larger cars. We should encourage the use of the middle-of-the-road type of car. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but it is clear from the debate that many of them have to look at the back of their cars to discover the engine capacity. That being so, we might do better to retain the present system and have an allowance of 25·9p per mile irrespective of capacity. The mileage, of course, must always be justified, but a standard rate seems the simplest proposition.

If we adopted a linked system, we should avoid the need to come back each year, cap in hand, to see if we can do a little better. Certainly, I do not think that debates of this kind improve our standing outside. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West referred to my comment that it is an honour to be a Member of this House. I genuinely mean that. Reference has been made to hon. Members lacking proper facilities and being given just a little locker. I have such a locker. [Interruption.] I hear someone commenting that I could probably get inside it. Fortunately, however, I also have a desk. We must accept the facilities available and make the best possible use of them. We also need the best possible secretarial and research assistance.

I urge my right hon. Friend, however, to reconsider the mileage allowance. I do not believe that the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), has found the right solution. I understand, too, that the Inland Revenue is waiting in the wings to jump on us if we continue with a standard rate of 25.9p per mile, but I still think that that is the best system. I repeat that it is an honour and a privilege to be here. We need a larger secretarial allowance, but we should retain the present mileage allowance system.

I support the amendment on the secretarial allowance. This is not additional money for Members of Parliament themselves; it is additional money to enable us to do our job properly. Many Members of Parliament feel frustrated because they cannot adequately deal with the problems of their constituencies. They do not have sufficient financial resources to do so.

It should be up to us to determine how the £12,000—or £17,000, as I hope it will be—should be used. The Member should decide whether he needs a secretary in his constituency, a secretary in the House, a research assistant, and so on. I also recognise the fact that the questions of advertising, advice bureaux and what equipment is needed will vary from Member to Member. In my view, however, £12,000, even with the marginal increase proposed by the Leader of the House, is insufficient to allow an hon. Member to do the job properly, as we all wish to do. The package of deals brought in last year did not deal with the problem properly. Unfortunately, a proposal which would have provided more money was not accepted. I hope that we will make amends today.

Hon. Members should be able to offer their staff reasonable pay and conditions. Twelve thousands pounds is not adequate to employ a full-time secretary and a part-time assistant at London rates, when one bears in mind national insurance contributions and other additional expenses. I believe that if an hon. Member is to do his job properly, a full-time secretary and half a research assistant are the minimum that he needs. Even with £17,000, we would not be over-resourced or over-provided. That would be the minimum.

I have no objection to the proposal that the allowance should be indexed in some way so that in future years we would not need to debate these difficult issues here. Members' pay could be treated in the same way. However, we must be sure that the base is correct before we devise a formula to take account of the need for uprating each year.

The amendment would be a step in the right direction. I intend to be a full-time Member of Parliament. I have no other sources of income. I depend on my allowances to enable me to do my job. At present, I cannot do the job as adequately as I would wish, because I do not have the means to employ a research assistant.

The question of mileage allowance is very complex. Before I heard the debate I was prepared to support the Liberal amendment. That seemed to be a reasonable compromise. Having listened to the debate, I feel inclined to vote against all the proposals before us, because I do not believe that we have found the solution. If the motion and the amendment are defeated today, I hope that the Leader of the House will think again and bring forward a better system.

In case the hon. Gentleman does not succeed in finding enough hon. Members to join him to defeat both proposals, should he not take the precaution of voting for the Liberal amendment?

I shall bear that suggestion in mind.

It is difficult to find the right formula. I recognise that the situation varies considerably between constituencies, and that the question of the distance between the constituency and London is very important. Hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies are in a far worse position than I am, with my constituency in north-east Lancashire, but London Members are in a different situation again.

Last week I looked at a map of the constituencies when I was considering the mileage limits. I had thought that my constituency was a reasonable size, but some of the constituencies in the south-west and in Scotland and Wales are considerably larger.

When thinking about the distances which hon. Members may have to travel to do their constituency business, I became somewhat concerned that the upper limit of mileage for the higher rate of allowance might be totally wrong in some circumstances.

I am dubious about the higher mileage allowance for cars of over 2300 cc. We are told that matters will balance out and that in theory a Member with a large car will not be in a better financial position than the Member with a car in the middle range. That may be so, but I know that with the higher allowance I could afford to run a car of over 2300 cc. Without that allowance, I could not afford to do so. There is an encouragement for Members, therefore, to upgrade their cars and buy a petrol-guzzler. In a time of energy conservation, it is not sensible to give Members that encouragement. We must think about that more carefully.

I would find it attractive to run a larger car than I need. My car is a 1600 cc Cortina Crusader estate. I can travel down the motorway in comfort, cruising comfortably at around the speed limit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I chose my words with care. There is no need for me to run a larger car. I hope that the Leader of the House will think again and bring forward a more sensible proposal.

First, may I say to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) how much I appreciated the fact that he ensured that the debate did not pass without reference to the resolution concerning the Lord Chancellor. I shall ensure that my noble Friend knows that he has the benediction of the House. I fear that he may not be too excited at the idea of a departmental Select Committee for his office, but I am pleased that the House should have seen the force of the argument in respect of that resolution.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs). In my household, the secretarial allowance is a matter of more than domestic concern. I came here today feeling sympathetic but, alas, no more than that.

The hon. Gentleman and many of my colleagues have essayed a very interesting argument. A case can certainly be mounted for more facilities for hon. Members, although many people will doubt whether the provision of more facilities has a very direct impact upon our effectiveness. The matter has been debated over many years. However, the debate has now widened to include a new idea—that of improved facilities for the Member in his constituency. It might be asked why there should be a London rate for an element of a pay package which relates to help in the constituencies. I make that point only to demonstrate that we are facing a complex series of arguments which will be fiercely contested, and which cannot be resolved this morning. Although—

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I have less than 10 minutes. The hon. Gentleman is a great addition to the House—I hope that that will help him.

What is being proposed is an increase in allowances of about 40 per cent. That is a rather formidable proposition for a Friday morning. We take comfort from the fact that the Government have said that they accept the Top Salaries Review Body proposal that, every four years, there should be a fundamental review of our allowance structure. Th. s morning we should console ourselves with the modest but nonetheless tangible advantages that the Government's motion offers.

Motor mileage has attracted the most protracted controversy. I understand that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) could not be here to move her amendment and I appreciate the chivalry of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West in standing in. The amendment would pay the present rate, which is higher than the proposed rate, for cars under 1·3 litres, to any person who had purchased that car before 20 July. I should be an immediate beneficiary as I do most of my constituency work in a Mini. Hon. Members have exchanged their motoring experiences this morning and I thought that I had better get mine out of the way, especially as they are so unprepossessing as compared with the experiences and styles of others—not least my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt). I do not believe that that rabbit will run as it would confer an extraordinary advantage quite fortuitously according to the date of purchase and would establish a principle and precedent that would be an endless fascination to all of those who watch how we handle our affairs, not least in respect of ourselves.

The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) moved the amendment that provided the core of the debate. His amendment would divide into two the middle rate of the allowance proposed by the Government. One would apply to cars between 1,301 cc and 1,600 cc and another for cars between 1,601 cc and 2,300 cc. I understand the consideration that prompted him to take that view and have given it careful consideration but, on balance, I have concluded that the Government cannot accept it for two reasons. First, there is a balance to be struck between the improved accuracy of a greater number of tiers and the administrative complexity of the new scheme. The complexity would be increased if the hon. Gentleman's amendment were adopted.

Secondly, and more significantly, the amendment proposes that while the rate payable to Members who drive cars between 1,601 cc and 2,300 cc should increase, the rate for the 1,301 cc to 1,600 cc category should remain at 25·9p, as specified in the Government's proposal. That would introduce an inconsistency. The 25·9p was arrived at by applying the formula that was used by the inquiry team to engine sizes across the range from 1,301 cc to 2,300 cc and taking an average. If it is to apply only to cars between 1,301 cc and 1,600 cc it should, on the basis of that formula, be reduced to 22·9p. Failure to make that reduction would mean that Members who drive cars in that category would be reimbursed more than the cost and could therefore find themselves subject to demands for income tax on the profit element. I do not believe that that would be acceptable. That is not merely a pedantic point—it goes to the heart of our dilemma.

We are currently in line with a truncated Civil Service formula. The formula with which we were identified previously moved without difficulty. It then became a two-tier mileage formula and the automatic link was not proceeded with because the House reacted sharply against it. We have remained merely with the top figure of the Civil Service arrangements. There is a real likelihood that it would be considered taxable by the Inland Revenue in those circumstances. It is therefore essential for the House to have a system in which the cost of motoring is more or less matched by the allowance. That is why the variables of engine size and of mileage are central. The proposal is drawn from external evidence supplied by the Royal Automobile Club and is therefore entirely justifiable to the public.

We must always remember that we live in a goldfish bowl and that the arrangements that we strike in regard to our expenses will quite properly be monitored by a world outside. In that context, it is thought appropriate to have a 25,000-mile check. I have heard what the House has said and realise what deep feeling there is. As I am not in the least interested in driving bull-headed through these matters, I can give an undertaking. I should like to examine the matter again with colleagues in the light of what has been said so that we can ensure that administration of the scheme is sensible and does not bear the remotest relationship to the Star Chamber image that a few of my hon. Friends drew. I do not deny their enthusiasm. This place exists only on a sense of decent and honourable relationships. It is not intended that there should be such a scorching monitor. I take account of the strong feelings on the matter and shall examine it again.

Over the years, we have had a multi-tier system of motor mileage and a single-rate system. I do not feel so confident that what is being advanced today will never be beyond question or recall, but the proposals before the House today are a practical attempt to resolve what could be a difficult problem for us. They have been constructed in the light of evidence that has been proffered by the Peyton report and in the light of where the effective monitoring and evidence falls with the RAC arrangements. On that basis, I think that we can be fair to ourselves and fair to the public.

We now move to motion No. 2, which is to be moved formally.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I would rather put the Question first. Does the hon. Member wish to move the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald)?

No, Sir. On a direct point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that when the House considered the Lloyd's Bill, members of Lloyd's were persuaded not to vote on it.

Order. I shall deal with that matter later. Is it directly involved with this motion?

It is directly involved. In the case of the mileage allowance, will you rule whether Ministers who are supplied with cars and have no direct interest in the mileage allowance be instructed whether they are allowed—

Order. I can put the hon. Member right on that. This is a matter of public policy and Ministers have every right to vote

I understand that the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Thurrock is not to be moved. I call the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) to move his amendment.