HC Deb 26 February 1957 vol 565 cc1074-87

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. F. BLACKBURN in the Chair]

Question again proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Wigg

Before the House went to another place I was thanking the Attorney-General, in Committee, for his kind and lucid explanation of the matter in hand. I gathered from him that it did not matter very much whether Clause 10 remained in the Bill or was deleted, for the last word was with the Treasury. Here I find myself at variance with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, for if the last word is with the Treasury, and I believe that the Attorney-General's statement is right, hon. Members are at the mercy of the Treasury when they go abroad on public business. I quarrel not with whether the Clause should be in the Bill or not, but with whether the Treasury should have this kind of control over the activity and the proceedings of the House.

Mr. E. Fletcher

I explained that hon. Members are at the mercy of the Treasury today.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Wigg

I entirely agree, but that fact is not altered by the question whether the Clause is in the Bill or not. Had I not been a close student of the proceedings of the Select Committee, I would have thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East had not understood the point, because his fulminations and almost violent language directed against the hon. Member for Hendon, South led one to suppose that if the Clause were omitted all would be well. But it does not matter whether the Clause stays or goes.

I think that the Committee ought to require an assurance from the Attorney-General, in response to the Committee's agreeing to the deletion of the Clause, that between now and the Report stage he will consult with the Prime Minister so that the future scale of allowances for hon. Members shall be determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons and submitted to the House for its approval. I am shocked that the Atorney-General, whom I really thought was an honest convert to the principle of the House having control, would not respond to my honest and sincere invitation to allow these matters to be tested by the free vote of the House. I am afraid that he is going to backslide still more, because he keeps his head down. It seems to me that he cannot look me straight in the eye on this matter, and I doubt very much whether he will do what I ask of him.

I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give serious consideration to the question whether it would not be in accord with the dignity of the House of Commons that it should be determined, not by the Treasury—and by a junior miss at the Treasury, because if there are any junior misses at the Treasury I think that they are all at the top—but by Mr. Speaker, in consultation with senior Members on both sides of the House and should be decided by a Resolution. If this is done, we can say goodbye to the Clause, because the House of Commons will have real and effective control. If an hon. Member breaks the rule, he knows the consequences. Indeed, it is extremely unlikely that the very efficient accounting system employed by the House would allow the rule to be broken.

Surely it is far better that when hon. Members travel abroad on public affairs they should look for payment of their expenses not to a public Department but to the House of Commons. Let the Attorney-General have his way. It will please him. It will not upset us. The quid pro quo is that he should see whether my suggestion can be brought into operation. If it is brought into operation, it will be one more step in the right direction. I am sure that the Attorney-General by that one action would do a great service to the House.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) pointed out, I voted in the Select Committee for the Clause being inserted in the Bill. I assure him that in voting for it I did not think that if it were carried by the House of Commons it would reimburse hon. Members for expenses incurred when they were absent from the country on the business of the House. That problem occupied no small part of our discussion, because the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), and the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) and myself had just returned from a very unremunerative visit to Malta for the Round Table Conference, and we spent some time ventilating our grievances to the other members of the Select Committee. Therefore, I want the Committee to understand that it was not without some knowledge of the practical working of the existing rules that we reached our decision.

The discussion that we have had so far today amply justifies our having put the Clause in the Bill. I have been rather interested in the varying standard of admiration which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has exhibited from time to time today for the Attorney-General. I think that my hon. Friend has indicated a way in which a better Clause than this could be framed. It is necessary that there should be some rule in this matter. Anyone who has served on a local authority knows that certain insinuations are sometimes made against certain members who are willing to go on delegations.

I have heard it suggested that a member of a local authority will try to be on three deputations simultaneously for three different bodies, and manage to claim expenses from all three. That is the kind of insinuation against public persons that it ought not to be possible to make, for it lowers and degrades the holding of public office for everybody who happens to be in office. I should not like to see left entirely open the question of what should be a Member's legitimate expenses which can be charged against the Vote concerned.

We virtually adopted the existing rules and we put them into the Bill, smarting as some of us were, under the feeling that we had a legitimate grievance against them. I think that the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley would be a good way out, namely, that there should be an arrangement by which this kind of matter should be settled by rules to be formulated after appropriate consultation by Mr. Speaker and, if necessary—in fact it might be essential—accepted by the House.

Whether that should be included in this Bill or another is no great concern of mine at the moment. I am willing to be guided by the plethora of lawyers we have who are interested in this matter as to what should be the appropriate Measure authorising such scales, but I should not like to leave the matter entirely at large. Without going so far as to agree with the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) that such a freedom might be used in future as a form of corruption. I think it is desirable that there should be a plain answer capable of being given to the question, when a person is sent anywhere on the business of this House, exactly what will be paid to him in respect of the expenses which he has to incur? I think that the public are entitled to know that, and I think that hon. Members are themselves entitled to be protected from insinuations that somehow or other this is a good way of getting a holiday.

Just before Christmas I spent six weeks in America. I tremble to think how much I should have been out of pocket on the scale prescribed by this Bill. Fortunately I was not there on the business of the House but for another body which undertook to pay all my bills. Somehow or other one hotel proprietor in America thought that he had to send the bill to me and not to the people who were arranging my tour. When I saw the size of the bill, I was amazed, since it was for a person who consumes no intoxicating liquor and "stands treat" to nobody under such circumstances, and who does not have cigars for himself or for his pals put on the bill. I told myself that if an hon. Member were to be sent either to the United States or Canada under the existing arrangements, we should have to look among the wealthiest Members of the House to find anyone who could undertake the job.

I am quite unrepentant about the Clause going into the Bill because I believe in the essential principle that there should be some arrangement. If we could have an assurance from the Attorney-General that the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley will be considered with a view to embodying something on those lines at a later stage of the Bill, or an assurance that another Bill will be introduced to carry out that suggestion if it is deemed inappropriate for this Bill, I should see the Clause disappear without any very grave misgivings.

The Attorney-General

I have listened with interest to this debate, which has largely been concerned with the extent of the allowances given for expenses. I should like to bring the attention of the Committee back to what I submit is the real consideration here, namely, whether this Clause serves any useful purpose in a Bill dealing with disqualification.

Views may differ greatly as to what would be the right machinery for fixing the allowances paid to Members of Parliament to perform their duties. I am sure that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) would not expect me to be able to say that later in this Bill, dealing with disqualification, we would seek to include a Clause dealing with that matter. I cannot give that assurance because I do not think that this Bill would be the right place for it. Nor do I think that the right hon. Gentleman would expect me to be in a position now to say that the Government would introduce a Bill dealing with this matter. Listening to the argument I can see considerable difficulties in dealing with it, because the scale would have to differ according to the journey. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the cost of travelling in the United States. Different allowances would have to be given for different journeys.

I will, however, draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to all that has been said on the question of allowances. I am sure that the Committee will appreciate that in relation to a Bill dealing solely with disqualification I cannot give a pledge of the kind requested by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who so far has been so pleasant to me today, although I fear that his mood will change a little later.

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)

The issues that have been raised in the speeches so far are somewhat diverse, and, as the Attorney-General has said, not all of them are directly concerned with the relevance of whether the Clause should be inserted or whether it should be withdrawn, but they arose under consideration of the Clause, and under consideration of whether this is the right Clause at this stage to be in the Measure.

May I, Mr. Blackburn, venture to say one sentence that may not be technically in order, and to apologise if a notification was not received by the Chair of my intention not to move my Amendments to Clause 1? I will apologise for that, although it is not my responsibility, as one of the persons to whom guilt has been imputed.

The Temporary Chairman

Order. The hon. Member has got in his apology, but he might leave it at that.

Mr. Hale

I am obliged, Mr. Blackburn, and I will not make any comment on the unfortunate observation made in my absence by an hon. Member who is not often here, certainly not as often as I am. I was, however, within the precincts of the House, interviewing a constituent. Also I was here for some considerable time during the business, unlike the hon. Member who made the observation.

The Temporary Chairman

Order. Would the hon. Member now come to Clause 10?

Mr. Hale

I had come to it, Mr. Blackburn, but as you have raised the matter as one of order, I would say that there is an inherent tradition in this House, always recognised, that if a personal attack has been made on an hon. Member without notice, and in his absence, he should reply to it the first moment he rises to his feet, and that is a right I have exercised.

The Temporary Chairman

Order. I thought I had given the hon. Member an opportunity to make that apology and explanation.

Mr. Hale

It was accompanied, unfortunately, by an observation from the Chair which could be understood as implying that the opportunity had been somewhat reluctantly conceded, had been speedily abbreviated—and speedily abbreviated because the Chair was then under the impression that it should not have been made.

The Temporary Chairman

Order. The hon. Member will be aware that there are times at which explanations should be made. I do not think Clause 10 is one of them.

Mr. Hale

May I then submit to you, Mr. Blackburn, in defence of the rules of the House, that I was informed a few minutes ago that an attack had been made upon me in my absence, without notice. Therefore, in rising to my feet I sought the leave of the Chair to make a very brief reply to that. I replied to it in one sentence.

5.30 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman

Order. I think that the hon. Member will be aware that the correct time to make a personal explanation is at the end of Questions and not on Clause 10 of this Bill.

Mr. Hale

I was not aware of that. I will accept your Ruling, Mr. Blackburn. It applies, of course, to the formal explanation where a matter of gravity is involved. I have been eleven years in this House, and time after time I have heard Members in the course of debate refer to some purely personal matters that had occurred in a previous part of the debate.

Having dealt with that, I will now come to the speech of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) which appeared to me to raise issues of very grave importance. He said that we had to be extremely careful that the Government should not have it in their power to give patronage to Members of the House of Commons. He said that this was a matter to which the House ought to have due regard. Anyone listening to those sentences in vacuo would be rather anxious to agree with them. It is well in accord with the traditions of this House that the Government should not be able to give patronage to individual Members, but that. of course, is not in accordance with the practice of the House. Patronage is given by Governments to individuals constantly and always has been from almost time immemorial. Indeed, in the early days of Fox and Pitt the issue of patronage was one of the principal duties of Government and its distribution one of the principal responsibilities of Ministers.

I recall that when an Irish Member came here from a Parliament which was no less corrupt—but he was an honest Irishman—and when Pitt asked where he could be met, he said, "Within pistol shot of the Treasury Bench." That expressed rather more forcefully the view which the hon. Member for Hendon, South put a few moments ago.

The difficulty in considering this Clause is that for humble, obscure Members like myself it is undesirable to give patronage, but if I had money to turn myself into a limited company it would be perfectly all right. I could own 99 per cent. of the shares. I could do all the voting. I could make my wife the second director, and then I could enter into enormous contracts with the Government. I could go into industry on a very large scale and no questions would be raised. A limited liability company, in the curious theory of this House, seems hardly to exist from the point of view of any questions of disqualification or questions of patronage.

The hon. Member for Hendon, South, in the extremely important observations which he made, raised another question. It is a serious question which the Committee ought to consider before it decides to withdraw the Clause. That is the question of the extent of the power of patronage that is exercised, by whom it is exercised, by whom it is directed, and so on.

It has not been my good fortune to be the recipient of anything in the form of patronage. From time to time I have pointed out that when the selection of people for these various excursions is made, they seem almost entirely to fall upon Members of the House who make the decisions. We have static Members and peripatetic Members. I am one of the static Members. Perhaps it is a tribute to my bulk and lack of speed and mobility that I do not have these opportunities.

In my early days I was invited by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to go on a most attractive trip in 1946. I was then told that, by some curious decision of the Government, a very distinguished man was going and he should be balanced by one of equal distinction from the Opposition. I was asked to stand down, and made no complaint. I was told that my claims would be recognised almost immediately, but they still remain unrecognised after eleven years. Three years ago I wrote and said that I would not expose myself to the humiliation of other refusals. I send this letter every time, so I have not suffered from patronage.

Mr. Wigg

If my hon. Friend in fact wants to exempt himself from the patronage of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association or the Inter-Parliamentary Union, why does he not do as I do and refuse to subscribe to either organisation? Then he will never be asked.

Mr. Hale

That is quite true. But I think that it is the duty of hon. Members to be members of organisations of that kind, and to see about reforming them a little. That is one of the objectives that I have in mind, but not one of my first priorities.

I should like to put this situation as it really is. Once, by chance, I found myself on a foreign trip. It was not that I had been selected to go on it. It was one of my hon. Friends who had been selected, but he found that he could not make the trip after he had paid for the tickets, and he asked me if I would take them over. For the first time I found myself travelling abroad and entitled to an allowance. This was a trip on which one paid one's own fare and received an allowance towards expenses. I was there as an indistinguished member of a very distinguished Parliamentary delegation. Our allowances were such that we were not able to afford any hospitality to the people who were there. This was an Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting at which there was a most distinguished American delegation led by Senator Kefauver. We had the honour to be invited to his hotel and provided with hospitality which we were quite unable to reciprocate.

I think it right that when we are discussing expenses the public should know just what does happen and that anyone who goes on these trips nevelt comes back with any money, although it is almost impossible not to spend money. So we had a meeting of Members to see what we could do about it and whether we could not provide some hospitality in return. We were in this difficulty, not so much that we could not out of our own pockets get the money together, but that we had to get it in francs. If I paid francs out of my own pocket, in those days when the allowance was £50, it would have meant sacrificing my holiday with my wife because I was spending, not so much the money, but an allowance, upon that purpose.

There was a delegation from the Philippines. Its members were staying in one of the largest hotels in Berne. We were stuck in a small pub on the outside. That was the situation. Who fixed that? Gentlemen from the Treasury whom none of us know. They are not susceptible, so far as I know, to any but written suggestions. They are civil servants under the control of this House who say, "This is the allowance for Members of Parliament and this is the allowance for civil servants." The civil servants' allowance is higher than that for Members of Parliament, and I think that the officers of this House get an allowance which is much higher than that accorded to Members of Parliament. This is the very unfortunate situation in which Members who have gone abroad with a duty and a responsibility to represent this country, to partake in discussions and to attend evening meetings, are being placed. It seems, therefore, that we all ought to be indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for having forcefully described a situation which is really becoming a disgrace.

I now come to the fuller question. The hon. Member for Hendon, South, if I understood him rightly, was saying that supposing there is a gathering of people—a committee gathered together to serve the community in some capacity—and supposing there is a flat rate of expenses allowance which is permissible, very few people will ever say that these expenses allowances are adequate. My right hon. Friend was a little surprised when he got his hotel bill in America, but if he saw a businessman's expenses account he would see a document which would, I think, make him realise that there was a provision for the rich which was never made for the poor Member of Parliament.

I understood the hon. Member for Hendon, South to be saying that supposing there are exceptional expenses incurred and application is made by members of the delegation for them, they can be paid to civil servants and to nonmembers, but they cannot be paid to hon. Members. I understood the Attorney-General to say that in those circumstances the hon. Member would not be disqualified, but would merely be asked to pay back the money. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman know how many Members of Parliament at this moment are really worried in the last week of the month and waiting for their cheque to come? Does he know how many Members of Parliament are at this moment having great difficulty in paying their bills? If he knew how many Members of Parliament are borrowing money on their insurance policies, and so on, he would not speak so lightly about the demand for the repayment of expenses. The Government have treated Members of Parliament abominably and deplorably.

I do not want to say any more about this. I almost prefer that we should go on until a new Government come in, when we could reform the whole question of the rules of the House, provide for the House to sit at reasonable hours and provide for a disqualification unless people are prepared to take their part in the affairs and conduct of the House.

In the meantime, we have to consider this very curious situation that the Clause was inserted by an overwhelming majority of the Select Committee and that the Government now come along and say that they have second thoughts. I am in favour of the present Government having second thoughts. Their first thoughts have nearly always been wrong. There is a great deal to be said for second thoughts.

As I have indicated, I have rather mixed feelings on this subject. I have no very special objection at the moment to the Clause being deleted. If my right hon. Friend decided to ask for a Division, I should support him because I do not feel very strongly one way or the other and I would not disagree with the views of the Select Committee, which we are following. However, I hardly think the issue is worth a Division. I am grateful to the Attorney-General for giving the undertaking which he did, which we accept is as far as he can go at this stage, having been confronted with a question which did not arise out of the Clause and is, anyway, ancillary.

Mr. Daines

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) because of an experience that I had, a number of years ago I admit, when I was the chairman of a delegation. The allowances were laid down by the Treasury. It was an official Parliamentary delegation, and not an I.P.U. one.

We found in Paris that the allowance given to us was not sufficient to pay for one meal. The second morning we were there I was faced with a situation that I had a strike on my hands. Among the hon. Members who led it is one who is now a distinguished ornament of the Government. I confess that I never dreamt that I should have to be the peacemaker in a strike led by a Conservative. It was humiliating and disgraceful that we all had to go round and negotiate with the proprietor of a cheap restaurant to let us have a meal at something below the usual price.

That all arose from the situation in which we are often placed, in that we are dictated to by the Treasury, and very often by junior officials. It is not only a question of dignity. There is a serious question of principle as to whether Members of Parliament should have terms dictated to them by officials of the Government, even if they are civil servants.

I strongly support my hon. Friend's plea that we should have laid down from time to time a proper scale of allowances in respect of different countries according to the way in which currency alters. All hon. Members ought to know what they can get. What I object to most strongly is that even now unless one keeps on searching and prodding one never really finds out what one is entitled to. I served on one official delegation for twelve months before I found that I could charge A, B or C, and then I found oat that other hon. Members who apparently knew the ropes could go to a hotel for bed and breakfast at about 4,000 francs while I was having to pay 1,000 francs a night.

That sort of thing is wrong. When they are engaged on the official business of the House, everybody should know what they are entitled to. The Committee owes a debt to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. I hope that we shall not take this matter lightly. It is not merely an irritation; it is something which is wrong in principle. There is nothing to which I object more than being told by a junior official of the Treasury what I have got to do. I would accept it from the House, but it is wrong for us to be placed in the position that we have to accept what is virtually the dictate of a civil servant.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. C. Davies

I also wish to thank the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for raising this subject. It is a very good thing that the debate has taken place. It is true, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said, that we debated the subject very fully after we had recently had the experience of being asked to go on Government business to Malta, and we were thus able to explain to the other Members of the Select Committee exactly what our position was. It was undoubtedly for that reason that the majority of us voted for the inclusion of the Clause. At the moment I do not think that it is vital Whether it is retained or not.

What is important is that this subject should have been raised, as it has been by hon. Members. At the moment we are in a most unsatisfactory position. I can vouch for what has been said by hon. Members speaking from their personal experience, because I have had the honour of being the treasurer of the Inter-Parliamentary Union Committee since 1945. Those hon. Members have been doing a service on behalf of Parliament in an institution which was formed by Members of the House, and they are worse provided for than the members of any other Parliament who attend the annual conference of that body or even than those who go on behalf of the House to visit other countries from time to time.

Until recently—it is as well that this should be known—the only amount that I as treasurer was allowed to give to Members was their fare, and it was not even the full fare but only half fare. What was the result? We had to go round asking who were willing to go and to pay the full amount out of their own pockets so that we might assist those who ought to go but could not otherwise have gone because they could not afford it. That is an absolutely wrong state of affairs.

I agree with the hon. Member for Dudley that it is high time that this matter was inquired into and that a regular form was settled. The allowance will, of course, have to vary according to the level of expenses likely to be incurred in various countries. It could easily be properly arranged, and it should be subject to being placed before Mr. Speaker, who would act on behalf of the whole House. The hon. Gentleman has done a service to hon. Members, and also to the public, in that the public may know that hon. Members are not getting something which is unfair but have really been unfairly treated under the present system.

Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.