On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

Order. Could hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly?

I do not usually raise points of order on matters of House of Commons security, but one of my constituents received an invitation to a reception in the House on 9 November that looked like a written personal invitation from the Prime Minister. After doing a little research, I found that the reception was for Animal Defenders International. The invitation was sent to a large number of people with an advertisement saying:

"WHIP ME BEAT ME KICK ME 9th November 2004. House of Commons."

Given the heightened security in the House, it seems to be quite irresponsible for a Member to book a room to host such an event, especially given that the invitation does not indicate the purpose of the meeting or who that Member is. The invitation has gone out to a large number of people throughout the country. Many have been taken in by it and thought that they had received an invitation from the Prime Minister himself.

If the hon. Gentleman gives me the documents, I will ensure that the Serjeant at Arms investigates the matter and reports to me.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision in relation to public authorities for the further prevention of sex discrimination and for the promotion of equality of opportunity for men and women.

Such a duty to promote equality was introduced for race discrimination in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. The Audit Commission has since described that as the key driver for change to combat the discrimination that still exists against our black and ethnic minority communities. Likewise, the draft Disability Discrimination Bill also contains a positive duty on the public sector to promote equality—and rightly so. It is now time for the same advance to be made for women and men, and my Bill would accomplish that.

The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 outlaws discrimination between women and men in the workplace and in the provision of goods and services. It was pioneering legislation 28 years ago when the incomparable Barbara Castle put it on the statute book. Her vision and determination put Britain at the forefront of the battle for equal opportunities and key advances were made. However, the Act does not prevent discrimination from happening in the first place, but it provides redress and compensation to those who experience it after the event, so only those who are determined enough to endure the stresses and strains of a legal process, the threat of losing their job or the likelihood of incurring high legal costs get the chance of receiving recompense. Cases can take many years to resolve with the result that women are still sacked for being pregnant and men are penalised at work for taking on caring responsibilities. In Britain today, much illegal discrimination is left unchallenged and unchecked.

A positive duty to promote equality would address that problem by shifting the onus to end discrimination from the individuals who suffer it to the public bodies that provide vital services to all of us and employ many millions to deliver them. The duty to promote will close many of those practical loopholes in the law, and make the fight against unfairness and blighted life chances much more effective. Make no mistake, there is still much to do, as recent figures have confirmed that the pay gap between women and men is stubbornly persistent at 18 per cent. Pay in the public sector is generally better than in the private sector. For example, the gap stands at 13 per cent. in health care, but in banking and public relations it is a staggering 56 per cent., and is widening. The causes are well documented, and women's lack of access to bonuses, overtime and opportunities for promotion are significant factors. Child care and other caring responsibilities often leave women with little choice but to work part-time for pay and conditions that are inferior to those in the full-time labour market, which often leads to men having to work even longer hours to make up the family income. British men work the longest hours in Europe, which is clearly not good for family life.

At work, women are still concentrated overwhelmingly in low-paid occupations and can expect to retire after a lifetime of hard work on a pension income that is just over half that of their male counterparts. Once again, the situation is not improving. The Equal Opportunities Commission, which supports the Bill, recently conducted an inquiry into job segregation by gender, and looked at five sectors—construction, engineering, plumbing, information technology and child care. Four of those sectors have a mainly male work force and major skills shortages, and one has a largely female work force and low pay. The commission discovered that the Government's modern apprenticeship scheme has reinforced rather than challenged that gender segregation. There has been no increase in the number of women coming into the four male-dominated sectors in the past ten years. For example, women make up only 1 per cent. of people working in construction, yet only 1 per cent. of modern apprentices in construction are women. Eight per cent. of people working in engineering are women, yet only 6 per cent. of modern apprenticeships in engineering are held by women. In child care, despite the prospective creation of 150,000 new jobs, men are almost completely absent from the sector and pay remains very low. A man who wishes to pursue a career in child care is still considered mildly eccentric or much worse. Overall, 95 per cent. of apprenticeships in engineering and construction are held by men, who earn £115 a week. In social care, by contrast, 89 per cent. of apprenticeships are taken by women, who earn just £60 a week.

Once the positive duty to promote equality is enshrined in law it is inconceivable that the lack of progress in tacking job segregation would be allowed to continue, and the role of the modern apprenticeship scheme in reinforcing that segregation would end. Banishing gender job segregation would offer women more choices and higher earnings opportunities and would also address skill shortages and boost our economic efficiency. It would offer men more civilised choices about their work-life balance. The duty to promote can also be a lever to ensure that public services are redesigned to reflect the life experiences of women and men more effectively. For example, men are much less likely than women to visit their GPs in a timely fashion, and only go to the doctor when their illness is advanced. Primary health services need to be redesigned to encourage men to seek help earlier. Women, on the other hand, rely on public transport much more than men as they have less access to private cars. They also have different patterns of usage, and combine trips to the shops with journeys to take children to school or the childminder, as well as their own travel to work. That is a complex set of journeys, yet bus routes and ticketing are often designed for simple commuting from one place to another. I could provide many similar examples of the scope for improving the design and delivery of public services to meet the needs of women and men more effectively. That can only improve efficiency and value for money.

There are those who will argue that the positive duty to promote will just be a bureaucratic nightmare that will have no effect on improving fairness and efficiency. These criticisms are usually made by people who do not wish our equality laws to be effective or modernised. In reality, the introduction of a new requirement to promote equality in the public sector can be delivered as part of the core planning inside an organisation. It should lead to greater equity and a more effective use of existing resources. It need not introduce extra complexity or expense, or endless paper trails, but it should encourage strategic analysis that results in more user-focused provision. That will create public services that fit the shape of more people's lives and that offer people equal opportunities to benefit.

I believe that, in due course, it is only right to extend these positive duties to prevent discrimination and promote equality to the private sector too. There is no reason why the efficiency and equity gains that they deliver should not benefit the whole economy and all our population. The Bill could be a small part of a third term Labour agenda to simplify, harmonise and extend equality protection to all. That would make our law simpler to understand and use for employers, employees and service providers alike. It would make protection from illegal discrimination a reality for all, and it would finish the work so ably begun by Barbara Castle by extending and opportunity further than ever before.

There is, of course, always a temptation when these worthy measures are brought before the House on these occasions for us to allow them to pass. Procedurally, you know as I do, Mr. Speaker, that measures brought to the House at this stage in the Session have no chance of reaching the statute book, for which I for one am grateful. There are occasions, however, on which I believe hon. Members should express a view when they think that the measure is ill-founded and ill-directed, as, sadly, I think this one is.

Although we always respect the motivation of hon. Members when they introduce such measures—I certainly respect the motivation of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle)—I believe that going too far in an area such as that with which the Bill deals can be just as damaging as not going far enough. For example, I was struck by her comment early in her speech that much illegal discrimination goes unchallenged. I think that she was referring to the existing law and suggesting that it was perhaps not being used to the full. I immediately wondered whose fault it was that such discrimination went unchallenged. In my view, one of the main duties of a trade union, for example, should surely be to use every opportunity under existing law to represent its members, be they male, female or whatever, in the context of the very law that she praised so highly.

If the hon. Lady is saying that much illegal discrimination is unchallenged, I ask her—and this applies to so much new legislation that is brought before the House—why we should not concentrate on using existing legislation more effectively before seeking to introduce yet more. That is a matter of important general principle, and I doubt very much from what she said whether she has spent quite enough time considering whether existing legislation is being explored to the full, not least by the trade unions, before seeking to introduce yet further measures of the sort that she is talking about.

The worrying thing is that the hon. Lady and her Government would be the first to say that, in the context of historically low unemployment in this country, which I applaud, and the fact that this country has one of the highest proportions of women in work in the western world, any measure that even risks diminishing those conditions could be highly counterproductive. There is always a risk that, if well-intentioned measures such as the Bill are carried too far and reach too far into the workplace, they could start to have a counterproductive effect. That danger cannot be over-stated.

We are familiar with the phenomenon by which a quango set up under previous well-meaning legislation uses the resources given to it further to justify its existence and to extend its remit, which is a natural thing for people in quangos to do and we see it all the time. However, simply because a well-funded quango says, "We have discovered more things to do," or, even worse, "Another new quango should be set up," does not mean that we should say, "That's all right then." That is one of the weakest parts of the hon. Lady's argument.

The hon. Lady went on to make an interesting case about apprenticeships. She said that far too few women avail themselves of apprenticeships in engineering and that too few men work in child care—I do not know how one arrives at "too few" in that context. I do not know whether the hon. Lady expects an equal number of men and women to enter engineering apprenticeships and child care, or whether the number of women on engineering apprenticeships is not quite enough to satisfy her.

Leaving that matter to one side, how can one intervene in the structure and running of apprenticeships in order to change that balance? Such arguments always miss that point. It is easy to say, "There are too few women in engineering apprenticeships." I am intrigued to know the mechanism by which the number of women in engineering apprenticeships, or indeed the number of men in child care, would be increased. It is not good enough to state the problem and then assume that the solution will be made available.

Even more intriguingly, the hon. Lady went on to discuss lifestyle changes, which sound very trendy. Were the legislation to reach the statute book, it would allow some sort of quango to intervene in transport and many other arrangements in order to fulfil the requirements set out in hon. Lady's motion. Again, we must be careful before we go too far in that direction. It is difficult enough to improve our public transport arrangements, whether tubes, buses or railways, without the nightmarish thought that some well-meaning quango will say, "We have identified some necessary lifestyle changes in the population. We think that our railways should run differently and that our buses should run on different routes in order to try to improve people's lifestyles."

The resolution is far reaching and ambitious. It has the potential to reach into all aspects of employment, the public sector, transport and many other areas. As for the duty to promote—I pick out that phrase because the hon. Lady stressed it—she did not give any details, perhaps because of lack of time, on how it would bear on employers and the workplace. The phrase is easy to deploy and sounds attractive, if it is said fairly quickly, but when one starts to examine the implications and ramifications of a duty to promote, which would no doubt be policed by a quango, reaching out into the workplace and interfering yet further in relationships between managers and the managed, one sees scope for severe disruption of the employment process, of which the Government are rightly so proud.

I urge the hon. Lady to think again about the implications of what she is suggesting. Such measures are always well motivated, but the implications and the adverse effect on the workplace are extremely worrying. If the hon. Lady is not prepared to do the decent thing and withdraw her proposal, I hope that the House, having given the matter careful consideration, will say, perhaps with regret, that it is not persuaded that the measure, radical and far reaching as it is, is remotely justified and should therefore not proceed.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Angela Eagle, Vera Baird, Mr. Roger Berry, Mr. John Grogan, Helen Jackson, Ann McKechin, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Joan Ruddock, Mr. Shaun Woodward and Mr. Parmjit Dhanda.

Sex Equality (Duties Of Public Authorities) Bill

Angela Eagle accordingly presented a Bill to make provision in relation to public authorities for the further prevention of sex discrimination and for the promotion of equality of opportunity for men and women: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November, and to be printed [Bill 172].

We now have three hours for the motion on Members' allowances and the two motions on parliamentary pensions. At the conclusion of the three-hour debate, I shall call the amendments to the Members' allowances motion that I have selected to be moved formally; the House will vote on each in turn and then on the main motion on Members' allowances, amended or not, as the case may be. We shall then vote on the two motions on pensions.

My selection of amendments has been posted in the No Lobby in the usual way.

I beg to move,

(1) That this House notes the recommendations made in Chapter 4 of the report of the Review Body on Senior Salaries on parliamentary pay and allowances (Cm 6354-I) a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st October; and is of the opinion that the provisions set out in paragraphs (2) to (5) below should be implemented, subject to any decisions of the Members Estimate Committee with regard to their application.

Staffing Allowance

(2) With effect from 1st April 2005, the Staffing Allowance should be increased to a base level of £72,000, rising to a maximum of £80,460, according to the number of full-time equivalent employees funded from the Staffing Allowance and based in London; and these sums should be adjusted on 1st April each year (beginning on 1st April 2005) in line with the Average Earnings Index for public and private sectors combined.

IT Provision

(3) With effect from the beginning of the next Parliament, the level of provision of IT equipment and support should be increased in line with recommendations 11 and 12 of the Review Body's report (Cm 6354-I).

London Supplement

(4) With effect from 1st April 2005, the London Supplement should be increased to £2,500, and this sum should be adjusted on 1st April each year (beginning on 1st April 2005) in line with the Average Earnings Index for public and private sectors combined; and it should not be payable to any Member who receives the Additional Costs Allowance.

Car Mileage Allowance and Parking

(5) With effect from 1st April 2005, the Car Mileage Allowance should be payable at the same rate as the car mileage rates approved by the Inland Revenue, with the higher rate payable up to a total of 10,000 miles and the lower rate thereafter or as determined in future by the Inland Revenue; and the cost of parking a car, motorcycle or bicycle, if wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the performance of parliamentary duties, should be reimbursed.

Incidental Expenses Provision

(6)

That recommendation 8 of the Review Body's report (Cm 6354-I) be referred to the House of Commons Members Estimate Committee for further consideration.

We have three motions before us this afternoon, the first of which is on Members' allowances, the second and third on parliamentary pensions. Explanatory memorandums on each have been placed in the Vote Office. All three are tabled in response to the report of the Review Body on Senior Salaries—the SSRB's triennial review of pay and allowances, a copy of which was laid before the House on 21 October. The Government are grateful to the SSRB for undertaking the review with its customary thoroughness and expertise. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House join me in thanking John Baker and his team for their hard work.

Let me say a word or two about the status of the SSRB. It is an independent organisation. That the Government, as a matter of principle, put its recommendations to the House is established practice. We ask the SSRB to study specific matters and it makes a recommendation, and it is to our advantage that we take outside and independent advice. I know that the whole House shares that view.

I emphasise that we are not debating Members' pay this afternoon. The SSRB recommended no increase in Members' or Ministers' salaries beyond the normal annual uprating in line with inflation. Personally, I think that that is right. Members' allowances have been the subject of some attention recently. It is understandable that some of the media and our constituents question whether the considerable sum spent on Members' allowances is well spent, but contrary to the lurid headlines, the allowances do not go to line our own pockets: they are essential if we are to function as effective Members of Parliament both at Westminster and in our constituencies, and all claims are within agreed rules.

The position today is very different from the one 20 or 30 years ago, when many Members lived in London, went to their constituency perhaps once a month for the odd surgery, and did not have a constituency office. Our constituents demand a different level of service and it is proper that the House has put in place the resources necessary to support that.

There are five effective parts to the motion. I shall deal with the amendments that you have selected, Mr. Speaker—(g), (h), (c) and (i)—during my opening remarks, if that is convenient. Paragraph (2) is applicable to the staffing allowance. It would implement recommendation 5 of the SSRB's report so that, with effect from 1 April 2005, the staffing allowance will be increased to a base of £72,000, rising to a maximum of £80,460 according to the number of full-time equivalent employees funded from the staffing allowance and based in London. Those sums will be adjusted annually in line with the average earnings index. The purpose is to enable Members to employ three full-time equivalent staff at proper rates of pay and to take account of the increased cost of employing staff in London.

I hope that the House will support the change. The SSRB based its recommendations on extensive analysis of pay rates in comparable jobs in London and outside. Although we must be careful with public money, we must pay our staff a decent rate for the job.

In reference to paragraphs (2) and (6), what does the right hon. Gentleman think is the reasonable minimum number of secretaries that a Member of Parliament should be able to employ in the Palace of Westminster without penalties?

That is a very complicated question and difficult to answer with a simple yes or no. The reason I hesitate to respond is that each Member allocates staff and determines the precise arrangements according to his or her own needs and choices, and I think that that is an important right shared by all of us.

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way again so quickly. He did not answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer), but will he answer mine? Does he agree that whether we base our staff in our constituency or at Westminster is a matter for each Member to determine and that the system should be neutral between the two decisions?

I am not sure that I accept the right hon. Lady's point about neutrality, because Members who base all their staff at Westminster do not pay rents and get free heat, lighting, use of the telephone and photocopying, and so on, whereas those of us who have constituency offices—the vast majority, including the right hon. Lady—incur costs there. However, one of the reasons why the motion refers the SSRB recommendation to the Members Estimate Committee, as the SSRB anticipated it might be, is that we would get into a difficult position if there were, in effect, a massive disincentive to having staff employed within the Palace or on the parliamentary estate. We are parliamentarians as well as constituency MPs, and that is an important principle to maintain.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, however, that in the light of the fact that the expenses and allowances paid to Members are now published, they should be equally and easily understood and able to be judged? Giving different allowances—taking £7,000 off a Member and making extra provision if a Member employs all his or her staff in London—adds to the complexity of already complex rules. Should we not be creating a simpler, more straightforward system that is easy to understand and easily accounted for?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. He has gone into the matter in considerable detail. There are enormous benefits in simplicity; on the other hand, the decision that the House took to establish two separate sources of allowance—the staffing allowance and the incidental expenses allowance, which overwhelmingly is directed toward constituency offices, although it can be used for other purposes—had the advantage of ensuring that our employees would not have to compete constantly against demands to buy a computer, or to pay a constituency office bill. We have an obligation to our employees to ensure that they have decent conditions.

Does the Leader of the House share my concern that the proposal on the incidental expenses provision, which the SSRB no doubt made in good faith, is extremely complicated? If the Members Estimate Committee accepts the recommendation, there will, in effect, be four levels of IEP for new Members starting after the general election, and a transitional arrangement with four different levels of IEP applicable to existing Members. Is there not at least the possibility of coming up with a simpler method of dealing with the problem of providing a little extra help to Members who have their offices outside London?

Yes, there is a simpler way—it is described on the Order Paper. On the other hand—the hon. Gentleman and I share common concerns on this, and I shall come on to it in some detail later—the enormous pressure on the parliamentary estate means that we have many different interests to reconcile. The SSRB tried to do that, but recognised that it would involve practical implications beyond its remit. We referred the proposal on the IEP to the Members Estimate Committee so that it could address precisely these issues. It is not the SSRB's fault, but the proposal that came to us had certain rigidities that could have had all sorts of anomalous effects. It is very important that proper consideration be given to that.

The question of pressure on the parliamentary state is certainly outside the SSRB's terms of reference. According to paragraph 4.43 of its report,

"The House authorities wish to encourage MPs to locate their office staff in the constituency."

Who are these House authorities—the men in wigs and tights? They take their authority from Members, and Members have never said that they want that.

I appreciate my right hon. Friend's passion, but the House authorities provide an extremely valuable service for us all in the variety of different functions that they undertake. They have a responsibility to inform the SSRB about a variety of issues affecting the parliamentary estate, including the enormous pressure on it.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the proposals in the report would seriously affect those of us who are outer-London MPs with a constituency office and staff in the House of Commons, as well as a huge amount of immigration and asylum casework? I would have either to sack one of my members of staff or to close down my constituency office.

That is why the motion refers the matter to the Members Estimate Committee, where several such issues will be discussed.

The purpose of my bringing before the House a series of proposals on how allowances should be structured is to allow the House to decide on them. It is for the SSRB to recommend, but for the House to make the decisions.

What surprises many of us is not that the recommendations came about but that none of us were consulted. I should have thought that consultation of Members of Parliament on their office costs and where they want to locate their staff would have been undertaken before proposals were brought to the House. That would be done in even the most primitive organisation.

My hon. Friend clearly has strong feelings, as have many Members on both sides of the House. I understand that. However, it is not true to say that Members were not consulted. Everybody knew that the SSRB inquiry was going on and anybody could have submitted evidence. At the back of the report there is a list of those who did so. The Speaker's Advisory Panel, which consists of Members of this House, was consulted. The proposal did not come out of thin air. It would not be right to criticise the SSRB, which has done a very professional job in the circumstances.

I employ one member of staff in the House of Commons. Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is disturbing that we are being told how we should go about our business in serving our constituents? It is not up to the body that has made this recommendation, the House authorities, or anyone but ourselves to decide whether we best serve our constituents by having staff here or in the constituency. I happen to have a constituency office. The proposals are simply unacceptable, and it is just as well that the Leader of the House should know that.

As I said, that is precisely why the motion refers the matter to the Members Estimate Committee. I agree that it is for Members to decide how they allocate their different allowances and serve their constituencies. Equally, however, there are constraints. One of those is the amount of accommodation that is available on the parliamentary estate; another is that those of us with constituency offices incur considerable additional costs, which are not incurred by Members who have all their staff located here. We have all sorts of different interests to balance.

The IEP should not be used to put pressure on staff salaries, which is why they have been kept separate; nor should it be used to pay for overnight stays for Members of Parliament on parliamentary business, which properly come under the additional costs allowance. When the Committee considers these issues, will the Leader of the House bear in mind that the rules for the additional cost allowance were drawn up in 1971 before there was a Parliament in Scotland, a National Assembly in Wales or any other assemblies that might come into being? Costs incurred on overnight stays on parliamentary business involving those places should come under the additional costs allowance.

I noted the hon. Gentleman's amendment, which was not selected. The difficulty is that the additional costs allowance is intended for a very specific purpose: to allow Members of Parliament to have both a constituency home and a London home in order that we can do our jobs effectively. If the ACA were to be redirected to other areas, that would raise issues about the basis on which it is established. The hon. Gentleman may claim under the incidental expenses provision.

The hon. Gentleman refers to the Scottish Parliament. That does not affect me, for example, because I have no constituency interest in going there, although I visit the Welsh Assembly, which, as it happens to be between my constituency and London, does not cause a problem. The hon. Gentleman can continue to press his case, and we will no doubt continue to take account of it.

If I may make a little progress, I shall deal with some of the points that hon. Members have made. Amendment (g), which was tabled by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) and others, would increase the staffing allowance to £80,460—the amount that the SSRB recommended—for all Members, ending the system of differential allowances for London-based Members and those with their staff based in the constituency, while allowing Members to use up to 10 per cent. of the staffing allowance to fund their constituency office. Linked to that is amendment (h), which would remove from the motion the proposed reference of the SSRB's recommendation on the IEP to the Members Estimate Committee.

I sympathise with the underlying point of amendment (g), which suggests that although Members with staff in London pay out more in salaries for their staff, Members with staff in their constituency may pay out more on office rental and other costs. That needs to be recognised in the funds that are provided.

However, the amendment would not encourage any location of staff to constituency offices. Furthermore, the staffing allowance and incidental expenses provision are each available for specific purposes, as I explained, and there is a logic to ring-fencing them for those purposes. Allowing the staffing allowance to be put towards office costs would be a new departure and would undermine the principle that the staffing allowance should be ring-fenced and available only for the purpose of paying for work done.

The Leader of the House has made much reference to ring-fencing to protect the salaries of staff. We are all sympathetic to that, but does he recognise that since the House introduced standard conditions of employment, with standard salary ranges, that argument has largely disappeared?

I am not entirely sure that it has disappeared. It concerns the principle mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick): that it is for each Member to determine, within the acceptable custom and practice that the SSRB and the House rules provide, how to pay staff, whether they are based in the constituency or in London.

Most significantly, amendment (g) would go well beyond the increase in staffing allowance recommended by the SSRB; I am advised that it would cost an extra £2 million to £3 million. I must therefore urge the House to reject it.

The Leader of the House says that the proposal will cost an extra £2 million to £3 million. From the SSRB's report, how much will the increase in the incidental expenses provision cost?

I do not have the figures, but the House authorities advise me that it would be an additional cost on top of the proposal that the SSRB recommended. I obviously need to rely on that advice.

Does the Leader of the House accept that the figures are not based on any research? If one examines the proposal for more money for IEP, amendment (g), which proposes instead more flexibility in the staff budget, appears neutral. Has the right hon. Gentleman gleaned some behavioural effect or research from the House authorities that supports the estimate of £2 million?

We all rely on the Department of Finance and Administration, which has great expertise, and it has advised about the figures that I have presented to the House.

I understand the unrest and anxiety, which is why I did not put the straight SSRB recommendation in the form of a motion. Indeed, the SSRB said that its practical phasing and implementation might need further consideration. Had I tabled such a motion, it would have been defeated for all sorts of reasons, some of which have been raised with me. I have therefore given hon. Members an opportunity to reflect, through the Members Estimate Committee, on how we should move forward. I believe that a much better approach would be for that Committee, which you chair, Mr. Speaker, to consider the SSRB's proposal for abating the IEP to encourage the location of staff away from the parliamentary estate.

The Committee will consider the picture in the round, including the interaction between the staffing allowance and the IEP. That is a proper course of action, which will avoid hasty compromises with uncertain effects.

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way to me a second time. If his recommendation is accepted and the matter is referred back to the Members Estimate Committee, would not it be appropriate for the House to express a view to that Committee about what it considers to be reasonable basic employment provision, which should not attract penalties? I am sad that my amendment (d) was not selected, but will the right hon. Gentleman at least undertake to ensure that the view of the House is taken before the Members Estimate Committee considers the matter?

The Members Estimate Committee reflects the wishes of the House and can receive representations through the Speaker's advisory panel and ordinary representations. The fact that everything is being conducted so openly allows hon. Members to make their points. I understand the point that the right hon. Lady made in amendment (d), which was backed by many hon. Members from all parties. It relates to my earlier point that I understand the accommodation pressures and the desire on the part of the House authorities for location away from the parliamentary estate to constituency offices. There is enormous pressure, especially through interns, on the parliamentary estate. However, we are parliamentarians—I believe that that lies behind the right hon. Lady's amendment—not glorified social workers. We are parliamentarians in addition to providing a first-class constituency advice and assistance service. I believe that most of us try to provide such a service. Although the numbers have to be determined and have to be proportionate to the availability of accommodation and resources, it is important to sustain the case for locating staff here.

I have been a Member of Parliament for 33 years and the SSRB report is the first example of a report that seeks to tell Members of Parliament how to organise their offices. That is extremely dangerous. An outside body, with little experience of our work, is advising us on how to do our job. I am grateful that the Leader of the House said that the matter will be referred to the Members Estimate Committee—I shall support that motion. I hope that the Committee will take into consideration the views of the House as expressed in the debate. Will the right hon. Gentleman express some anxiety about the fact that, for the first time, an outside body has sought to tell hon. Members how to organise their offices and the job that they do in the House and in their constituencies?

As I have signalled in the clearest possible terms, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, I must disagree emphatically with any suggestion that the SSRB has operated in an improper fashion. The SSRB is not telling him, me or any other Member what to do. It has provided a set of incentives—whether the House and the Members Estimate Committee accept them or not—to fulfil a set of criteria that it was invited to investigate. They include pressure on the parliamentary estate and the anomaly that hon. Members with staff who are based only on the estate get the whole IEP and do not bear the costs of a constituency office, as, for example, I do. It proposed a recommendation in good faith. We should respect that and I do not accept that it was ordering any of us to do anything. In the end, the House will make the decision.

If the SSRB had not made the recommendations, an entirely different set of people would be in the Chamber, complaining bitterly that it was not advantageous for them to have offices in their constituencies. Many hon. Members do not have staff in the House. The proposal is not as draconian as it appears at first sight. The SSRB also recommended that hon. Members should have computers as well as a laptop for themselves. [Interruption.] If the work station is based here and shared by a member of staff, I presume that it would not count against the £7,500 reduction in the IEP, which would allow hon. Members to have two members of staff here with only one work station. [Interruption.]

I stress to hon. Members that my hon. Friend has done a lot of work on our behalf and her point is about the number of work stations that one can have in order to be allocated the specific provisions under the IEP that the SSRB recommends. Hon. Members can vary the number of staff according to the availability of work stations. That sort of detail makes it important for the Members Estimate Committee to consider the matter in greater depth.

For many years, Members of Parliament decided that we needed to improve the office accommodation for our staff and ourselves. Given that there is now more office accommodation than ever, why has someone decided on our behalf that we should discourage people from letting their staff use the accommodation? Three people work in my outer office. If I get rid of two, someone will continue to use the outer office and there will be no gain. My right hon. Friend says that we should submit the proposal to the Members Estimate Committee, but it will consider a transition towards something to which we have never agreed.

The recommendation has been made precisely because I was aware of the concerns that my right hon. Friend and others have expressed. The Members Estimate Committee will therefore have a chance to examine the proposal in more detail.

Will the Leader of the House give way?

I am afraid that I need to make progress.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on the point that we are considering?

No. I need to answer my right hon. Friend's other points and then I shall give way.

The truth is that this place is bursting. There are already far too many people working here, and it is not the case that we could just fill up our offices with existing paid and unpaid members of staff. Even unpaid members of staff have an effect, through the greater use of catering and other facilities here, resulting in a drain on the House's resources. If we expect other people to be careful about public spending, we cannot simply expand our allowances and accommodation willy-nilly.

The theme running through this debate is that Members feel that they are not being properly consulted, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) pointed out. Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that, when the Members Estimate Committee has done its work, the House will have a chance to take a view on its recommendations?

On that specific point, I can say yes. If the Members Estimate Committee comes back with major changes to the way in which the allowance is structured—whether of the exact nature that the SSRB has recommended, or a variation or equivalent of it—of course the House will have to make a decision on them. That is absolutely right.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I shall take one last intervention, then I must make some progress, because I know that other Members want to move their amendments and contribute to the debate.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) talked about the office accommodation that has been provided here. Does the Leader of the House agree that it would be strange, having built Portcullis House a few years ago with specifically dedicated accommodation for staff to work alongside Members, if we were to pass a resolution now to discourage Members from employing any staff to work in that accommodation? There is something slightly not joined up about that thinking.

That is another reason why it is right for the House, through the Members Estimate Committee, to consider further these conflicting points.

rose—

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, because he has been trying to intervene on me. I did something very unusual in the case of this SSRB report, in that I did not just put down the recommendations from the board, because I knew that they would provoke precisely the concerns that have been raised here this afternoon.

There is a universal dislike of the whole notion of abatement, the reasons for which a number of hon. Members have set out. For inner London Members and those who do not claim the additional costs allowance, who are assumed to have a single base, this whole idea is an absolute nightmare. I saw in this idiotic report—I am not a great fan of the SSRB report—the suggestion that we could somehow get office space at between £8 and £23 a square foot. I should be very interested to see whether the Serjeant at Arms Department could find me or the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) anything at that price in our constituencies. Is it seriously being suggested that those of us with constituencies in central London should open satellite offices in Luton, Slough or Reading in order to make ends meet? That really is absolute nonsense.

I am not suggesting that, and nothing that I have said suggests that. This is an independent report, and I hope that, on consideration, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw what he said about it being idiotic. It has been very carefully considered, although whether it has come to the right conclusion on this particular issue is a matter for the House. We asked the SSRB to look independently into the provision that we make for ourselves; otherwise we could just vote whatever we liked for ourselves, without any independent advice, and it is important that we bear this in mind.

This obscure debate is certainly one-sided. I would like to ask my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members whether they realise the impact of the lack of accommodation in the parliamentary estate. Some Members of Parliament are still working in offices that do not even have windows, never mind accommodation for staff.

That is part of the complexity that we are having to wrestle with. I would like to make some progress now, because I think that I can help the House in the debate that is to follow.

Even if the House were to accept amendment (g), I hope that it will reject amendment (h). I believe that it would still be helpful for the Members Estimate Committee to consider this matter thoroughly; the questions that have just been put to me underline that point.

On the question of information technology provision, paragraph 3 provides that, with effect from the beginning of the next Parliament, the level of provision of IT equipment and support be increased in line with recommendations 11 and 12 of the SSRB's report. In other words, the level of provision of IT equipment should be increased by one, so that each Member has one fixed workstation and one laptop for his or her own use, plus three further workstations, so that each full-time equivalent member of staff paid for through the staffing allowance has his or her own PC, and that each Member should also have two heavy-duty printers. The level and range of IT support offered to constituency offices should also be improved to a level comparable with that offered on the parliamentary estate.

I warmly welcome the two recommendations that the Leader of the House is describing. Does he accept, however, that if we are to have more remote facilities and more support from staff here and elsewhere, the network needs urgent attention to ensure that remote users of the parliamentary data and video network—the PDVN—have an adequate service? It really is not adequate at the moment. The service in the House is not at all bad—I speak as someone with 30 years' experience in the world of information and communications technology—but the remote service is not adequate.

My hon. Friend has raised this matter before. It is precisely for those reasons that the SSRB has recommended extra provision for a local constituency IT service comparable with that offered on the parliamentary estate, provided at local level. The House and I fully accept this recommendation, and I know that the House authorities will resource it.

I believe that Members on both sides of the House will welcome these recommendations on IT, which reflect proposals by the Information Committee. It is important that Members, and Members' staff, should be adequately, although not lavishly, equipped to function effectively in the information age, and particularly to interact better with our constituents. The increased IT support for constituency offices should help those Members who choose to locate their staff away from the parliamentary estate.

Paragraph 4 relates to the London supplement. It would implement the SSRB's recommendation that the London supplement should be increased from next April to £2,500, the same level as the proposed enhancement to the staffing allowance in respect of London-based staff, and that this sum should be adjusted annually in line with the average earnings index. It would also implement the SSRB's recommendation that, in future, Ministers and officeholders should be able to claim the London supplement only if they did not claim the additional costs allowance.

Does the Leader of the House accept that the conclusion in paragraph 4.35 that there were

"no major concerns about the London Supplement"

is odd, given that I have spoken and written to him and his predecessors about the very low level of the supplement? I was particularly disturbed to read that the report stated that

"we did not interview any MPs with inner London constituencies."

On what basis, therefore, can it possibly conclude that the recommendation that the allowance should go up to a paltry £2,500 is credible, given that central London Members have to have a main, rather than a second, London home, when Members who claim the additional costs allowance are claiming at the rate of £20,902 a year? The methodology behind the London supplement is entirely wrong. A figure seems to have been plucked from the sky, which is one of the reasons why I tabled an amendment to the motion, although it has unfortunately not been selected.

I know that the hon. Gentleman wanted to put an alternative point of view before the House. The SSRB did not just pluck the figure out of thin air, as he has implied. It is based on equivalent civil service rates. The additional costs allowance is to enable Members with constituencies outside the London area to provide a proper service and to live in their constituency, which is a central part of modern parliamentary life.

May I make a further point in relation to what the hon. Gentleman has just said? Eight individual MPs gave evidence to the SSRB, including the Opposition deputy Chief Whip, the chair of the Labour party, the Liberal shadow Leader of the House, and many other Members of Parliament—[Interruption.] The shadow Leader of the House did, too—we would not want to forget him. Of course, I gave evidence on behalf of the Government, so it is not the case that no evidence was given. More evidence could have been given, including from the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), because everybody knew the inquiry was going on.

Paragraph (5) is to implement the SSRB's recommendations on the car mileage allowance. It provides that car mileage allowance should be payable at the same rates as the maximum car mileage rates which the Inland Revenue recognises as excluding a profit element. Car mileage will be payable at a rate of 40p per mile up to 10,000 miles and 25p per mile thereafter, instead of 57.7p per mile up to 20,000 miles and 26.6p per mile thereafter, as at present. Those rates will be adjusted automatically in line with the future changes in the Inland Revenue rates.

In part compensation for the reduction in the mileage allowance, and also for the loss of free parking at airports, paragraph (5) makes new provision for the cost of parking a car, motor cycle or bicycle to be reimbursed

"if wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the performance of parliamentary duties".

The Members Estimate Committee and the advisory panel on Members' allowances will be asked to approve the rules for claims. I believe that this change will be widely welcomed.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Inland Revenue recommended rate for mileage allowance has not increased for several years? It has remained stationary.

Yes, I understand that that is the case.

I recognise that the proposed change represents a significant reduction in car mileage allowance and that this will have a significant impact on those Members who are heavily dependent on car transport, particularly those with large rural constituencies. I also recognise that the immediacy of the changes—by 1 April—could put some Members in real difficulties if they have entered into leasing or purchase agreements that go beyond that date.

The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and others have quite properly tabled an amendment that would freeze the current rate until the Inland Revenue rates catch up with the House rates. That could be many years, however. The effect of the amendment is therefore firmly to reject the SSRB recommendation, which I have put before the House.

I am putting this marker down now while a number of Members are present. The Inland Revenue rate seems to fail entirely to take into account, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, the size of a constituency and the need for a Member to use his car in that large area to undertake constituency duties. There is no difference between an inner-city seat and a large urban seat, which surely is grotesquely unfair. It could be a disincentive to Members properly and fully undertaking constituency duties and, in some cases, travelling to London when there is not adequate public transport to enable them to do so.

I know the points that the hon. Gentleman is making. I dare say his constituents and mine would want to make the same points if they travelled a lot on business, but may I make this point? Some Members feel that the Inland Revenue rates are too low to reflect the true costs of motoring. The Government do not accept that. The 40p rate, which was set in the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, covers the full costs of using a car for business travel for a wide range of types and size of car, including cars that are safe and comfortable for long business journeys. It is advantageous to drivers of small, environmentally friendly cars. It has been set at a level that will not subsidise all the standing costs of owning a larger, more fuel-hungry car, so that it does not encourage drivers of larger cars to drive unnecessary business miles. It is, however, still generous enough fully to cover the marginal running costs of such cars.

In any case, if the House feels that the Inland Revenue rates are inadequate, that is an argument for reviewing those rates, not for diverging from them. I hope that the House will reject the amendment.

The Leader of the House has just referred to what the Inland Revenue reckons that 40p covers, which is the marginal cost of using the vehicle, whereas our current motor mileage allowance purports to cover the capital cost of the vehicle as well, so we are considering two fundamentally different things. What is being proposed is a change of policy dressed up as a recalibration of some comparative figures. If we are to debate what is being proposed, we should do so with our eyes open, rather than confuse two completely different things.

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but the SSRB has considered this in the round and considered what applies to our constituents, saying that we should be treated in the same way as they are. That is what it is arguing.

The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), by contrast, has tabled an amendment that would strike out the proposal to allow hon. Members to claim for parking charges. While I sympathise with his wish to encourage the use of other forms of transport, the fact is that many hon. Members rely on cars in their constituencies and for at least part of their journey to and from this place. That point was made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield.

A problem has arisen in respect of the withdrawal of free car parking provision by BAA, as a result of shareholder action. That has placed a lot of Members of the House who rely on air transport in Scotland, north-west and north-east England and elsewhere in real difficulty, because if they have to leave their cars for the best part of a week a huge additional cost is incurred. I would point out that the provision that we recommend applies to motor cycles and bicycles as well as to cars.

I have looked through the SSRB report and I can find no recommendation relating to parking. Have I missed it or is it a subsequent invention as part of the motion?

I think the hon. Gentleman has missed it. If he looks more carefully, he will see it.

On the parking issue, previously there was deemed to be an element of profit in the motor mileage allowance. That was one reason for deciding that no allowance should be made when congestion charging was introduced. If we accept this proposal for parking, should not we also accept it for congestion charging if the profit element has gone from the motor mileage allowance?

The Inland Revenue does not provide for congestion charging to be met in such a way. I should say to the hon. Member for Lewes that if the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Macclesfield is carried, I will recommend that we support it, because built into the costs of the mileage rate of the House of Commons is provision to meet such costs. For example, if I travel across the Severn bridge I pay a toll. I do not think that that should be provided for by the House authorities, because the mileage rate is fairly generous. The same applies to parking.

The Inland Revenue figure is for the calculation of tax liability; it is not said that a higher allowance should not be paid by an employer. Simply, if an allowance is given above that figure, it is taxable. That is already the case with Members' existing allowance—it is taxable above 40p. That is a matter for the Inland Revenue to decide, but the fact that this does not accurately reflect modern costs of running a motor car is well known throughout the nation. The AA says that, as do all the motor car magazines that publish the costs of running a motor car. The Inland Revenue point has nothing to do with the real cost of running a car, but it relates to a threshold for taxation.

There is a lot of substance to the hon. Gentleman's argument, but the public in our constituencies are treated by the Inland Revenue in a certain way. [Hon. Members: "So are we!"] Well, we are not, because we get a higher rate than is generally given. Anyway, this is ultimately—[Interruption.] Look, I understand the concerns. For goodness' sake, I acknowledged the concerns earlier by saying that I understand the points that are being made, particularly the sharp change— [Interruption.] Hon. Members ask why I am proposing what I am proposing. It would be a serious departure if the Leader of the House did not put before the House recommendations from the SSRB.

It is for the House to decide what it wishes to decide—that is our sovereign right—but asking an independent body such as the SSRB to look at this dispassionately and then not putting its proposals before the House would be a serious breach with tradition and practice in respect of independent advice from such a body.

The fact that there is a tension between the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes and that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, which I have supported, shows that the review body's recommendation does not suit all hon. Members. Despite the fact that we could have been consulted on the matter, this recommendation has come to many of us as a complete surprise, out of the blue. It is grossly unfair to those of us with large rural constituencies some distance from London. I agree that the provision can be unfair to people who have to use airports, but surely the matter should be referred back to the Members Estimate Committee if the amendment is not carried.

I understand that point, but I have an obligation to put before the House recommendations from the SSRB. It would be a serious breach of practice adopted by previous Leaders of the House were that not done.

I will now take what must be the final intervention.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when Members vote on the matter they should bear it in mind that it is difficult to explain to the public why we are prepared to accept SSRB recommendations when they increase our pay and allowances, but not so keen to accept them when they lead to a reduction? Without wishing to be pious, does he agree that at a time when every party talks about the need to combat climate change, we should at least set some example in relation to the mileage for which we claim and the vehicles that we operate?

Yes, I do. I speak as someone with a large constituency, with large rural areas, who must necessarily incur large constituency mileage in going about my parliamentary duties.

The proposed provision for the reimbursement of parking—for parliamentary duties only—will be fully justified if the House agrees to reduce the mileage allowance as the SSRB has recommended. If the House rejects amendment (c), I hope that it will also reject amendment (i). If the House agrees to amendment (c), however, I shall support amendment (i), and I hope that the House will also do so. That is because the existing car mileage rates include an element to cover parking charges. Amendment (c) on its own would allow double reimbursement for parking costs.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I am sorry but I must stick to what I said earlier; otherwise, like a parent with a—I will not continue with that line of thought. [Laughter.]

Paragraph (6) deals with the incidental expenses provision. The SSRB's report recommends that the provision be increased to a maximum of £27,500, and that the amount that may be claimed by Members should be abated by £7,500 for each permanent workstation occupied by their staff on the parliamentary estate. As the SSRB acknowledges, this recommendation could involve a significant reorganisation of current office arrangements for many Members, or else a significant loss of income. The SSRB states that it would understand were the House to conclude that the recommendation should apply only to new Members and that certain transitional arrangements should operate for currently serving Members. The Government believe that it would be appropriate for the Members Estimate Committee to give further consideration to this matter, particularly in the light of the points raised during this debate and the strong views expressed.

I fully support the principle behind the SSRB's recommendation—we must take steps to relieve pressure on the parliamentary estate, and we must address the current disincentives discouraging Members from basing their staff in constituency offices—but there are a number of other factors to take into account, which the SSRB was not able to address: security, for example, and the administration of House services. The Members Estimate Committee will be able to consider the various factors in the round.

On parliamentary pensions, the SSRB has made two recommendations. I am grateful to the trustees and their chairman for their work on this matter. Before I examine the matter, I want to say on behalf of the House how indebted we are to those Members who serve as our trustees. They have important and wide-ranging duties and responsibilities, and I would like to record my particular thanks to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) and his fellow trustees for their continued excellent service in running our pension scheme.

The second motion before the House is to implement the SSRB recommendation that the contribution rate for those scheme members who have opted for their pension to build up at a rate of one fortieth of final salary for each year of service should increase from 9 per cent. to 10 per cent. It may be recalled that in 2002, the SSRB recommended that, in the first instance, the contribution rate of members who opted for the one-fortieth accrual rate should increase to 9 per cent. It recommended that the remaining cost of the benefit improvement should be taken into account in subsequent reviews of pay and allowances. That would mean that eventually the full cost of implementation would be borne by Members on an ongoing basis. The Government accepted that recommendation.

The SSRB has now considered the options for recovering the remaining cost. It has concluded that it would be unfair to restrict future pay increases for all Members irrespective of whether they had opted for the one-fortieth accrual rate. It has instead recommended that the contribution rate for those who opted for the improved accrual rate should increase by 1 per cent. from 1 April 2004. It considers that an appropriate step towards recovering the full cost. The SSRB remains of the view that the full cost of the benefit improvement should in due course be borne by Members on an ongoing basis. It intends to take the outstanding amount into account in its next review of parliamentary pay and allowances.

The Government are content with the SSRB's recommendation to phase the recovery of the additional cost and believe that it should be implemented. If the House agrees, I understand that the trustees would propose that the collection of arrears back to 1 April this year should be spread over the balance of the current tax year, so that Members are not saddled suddenly with a huge bill. The Government are happy with that approach.

The SSRB has recommended that the trustees should decide what action to take on the recommendations outstanding from its 2001 report. The main outstanding recommendations relate to the extension of survivor benefits to unmarried partners and the introduction of pensions for life for surviving widows and widowers. The Government's policy is that such benefit improvements could be introduced only if Members are prepared to meet the additional costs. That is consistent with our line on other public service schemes. In 2001, the House expressed its view rightly that survivor benefits should apply to unmarried partners as well as spouses. I have therefore been in discussion with the trustees about how those important provisions can be introduced in a way that is fair to Members and to the taxpayer. The issue of civil partners is slightly different. It is expected that the scheme will be amended to provide benefits for surviving civil partners, and that any additional costs arising from that will be met by the Exchequer.

The Government have noted the observation made by the SSRB in its report that phasing out the favourable early retirement terms in the scheme would be consistent with the Government's policy on public service pension age and might make possible benefit improvements as part of a package. The Government therefore feel that this represents a sensible way forward. The additional cost of providing pensions to partners and not just spouses can therefore be offset and remain cost-neutral by implementing the new retirement provisions.

Given that the Leader of the House and several of his Government colleagues have said on a number of occasions that they wish that a variety of hon. Members would go away, is not this change inconsistent, as it makes it less likely that they will do so?

I do not remember any such recommendation from me unless it was in respect of Conservative Members of Parliament. It would be good to see more Labour Members of Parliament in the House. [Laughter.] I am not going down that road, either.

The Government's policy on pension age, first announced in the 2002 pensions Green Paper, is that the rules of public service schemes should be changed to make an unreduced pension payable from age 65 rather than 60.