The debate about MPs pay and rations is inevitably focusing on the money, but perhaps we need to try to step back and focus on value. About 10 years ago I took my car to a garage for an MOT and I noticed that the hourly cost of labour was being charged out at £34 which is the current hourly rate our MPs would earn if they only worked for 37.5 hours a week. Although the mechanic would have earned much less than £66,000 and MPs work much longer hours than 37.5 a week, that does nevertheless show that our legislators are not earning a kings ransom. At around the same time as my car was being tested, I was discussing hourly rates with a Surveyor and he advised me to charge £75 for some work I was being asked to carry out. As I wrote at the end of May at least one of our MPs earns £435 per hour in his extra curricular work as a Barrister. At the other end of the spectrum the minimum wage remains at £6.19 until October this year.

The debate so far on the issue of MPs pay has included assurances from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor that they want Politics to cost the country less, and Michael Gove raised a spectre we need to avoid at all costs. He was interviewed yesterday and in his rather childish response and rejection of IPSA, he at one point suggested that being an MP was so fulfilling that they should pay for the privilege of doing the work. If Politics comes too cheap, we will end up with people who can afford to pay to have power over our lives. That is the opposite of what we need. We need Parliamentarians of the highest quality who reflect all communities, and our demographic make up just as we need the role to be seen to be worthwhile in the eyes of all of us.

Earlier this week a rather pathetic exchange took place in the House of Commons which revealed a minimum wage standard of understanding and integrity by two Conservative MPs, one who was previously a Minister and the other who still is. The discussion centred around the other issue of political finances that is dominating newspapers and broadcast media. The impact and power of the Trade Unions within the Labour Party is a subject that the Conservative Party are keen to focus on, particularly if it keeps the spotlight away from their own links to rich men and women from the world of business.

Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend think it might be a good time to review the rules on the declaration of councillors’ interests, given that it is now compulsory for all Labour council candidates to be a member of a trade union?

I happen to know that Bob Neil is wrong on this point, as a recent by-election in Brighton led to an attack on the Labour candidate for her lack of trade union affiliation (the attack came from a Green Party sympathiser).

Mr Pickles: I am shocked to hear that information. People will now wonder whether councillors are working for their residents or their trade union bosses, and I shall review the situation as a matter of urgency.

There are many things that Eric Pickles needs to focus on as a matter of urgency, so distracting him with this nonsense is an abuse of our trust and resources. Perhaps as part of the changes to MPs pay and conditions we could demand a form of Payment By Results. If Bob Neil and Eric Pickles want to amuse themselves with this sort of nonsense, then they should do so on their own time and at their own expense. Equally if an MP helps improve the lives of constituents, either through a Parliamentary debate or by spending time resolving their problems, then they rightly deserve an appropriate reward.