HC Deb 24 February 1967 vol 741 cc2201-10

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitlock.]

4.2 p.m.

Sir Ronald Russell (Wembley, South)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, who deals with European affairs, for coming to answer the debate. I say without hesitation that I have no criticism whatever of the Foreign Office in this respect. It is the Treasury which I want to criticise and it is a bit hard that the Foreign Office has to reply on behalf of the Treasury.

I am raising this issue not as a present member of the delegation to the Council of Europe—and it is therefore perhaps easier for me to raise it than it would be for an hon. Member who was a member of that delegatio—but because I was a member for nine years and have had plenty of experience of how its conferences work. I should like to pay tribute to the help, co-operation and courtesy which I always receive from the Foreign Office, particularly the Conference Supply Department, in making travel arrangements, sometimes at short notice, and the Financial Department for always repaying expenses promptly and accurately.

I was prompted to raise this subject when I was told that after 1st April next members of our delegation would have to travel economy class by air, at least on short hops, and that they would have to stay in first-class as distinct from luxury hotels when attending committee meetings between sessions of the Assembly in Paris or Strasbourg, or elsewhere. I do not know what is meant by "short hops". Does that refer only to Paris or to both Paris and Strasbourg, which is really the same thing, because the air journey between Paris and Strasbourg is, or was, economy class? Does it also include Brussels and The Hague or places further afield such as Nicosia, Istanbul, Oslo or Stockholm, where committees sometimes meet between sessions?

To make a member of the delegation travel economy class when first-class seats are available is bad for our prestige, especially in the case of former Ministers from either side of the House. The Conservative side of our delegation at present is led by a former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home). The present Minister without Portfolio was the delegation leader for a time. It looks rather bad if one of those distinguished members travels economy class by plane and there happens to be a distinguished member of another delegation travelling first class on the same plane, such as a member from Eire who might come to London on his way to a committee meeting elsewhere.

What happens about the President of the Assembly, who is now the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas)? Does he travel to Strasbourg at the expense of the Government or the Assembly? If it is at the Government's expense, must he also travel economy class when first-class seats may be available? It will also be interesting to know whether ambassadors and senior civil servants must travel economy class. I apologise if I have not given the right hon. Gentleman notice of one or two of those points. They have occurred to me since I gave notice the other day.

I am relieved that there is apparently no intention to compel members to travel second class by rail. Although that class is vastly improved, the seats are still only wooden, even if they are a bit more polished than they used to be.

The rigid restriction to first-class hotels or downwards for committee meetings may cause complications, and possibly bring no advantages. My experience of attending committee meetings between sessions was that often the committee secretary offered to make reservations for all committee members, and he would make them all in the same hotel. When visiting such places as Berlin, Venice, Munich, Vienna or Brussels we sometimes stayed in what would be classed as a luxury hotel. A great deal of trouble was saved if we travelled somewhere by coach because we were all together. Often a tour was arranged. If anybody was staying at a different hotel he had to get a taxi, and often catching taxis to the meeting place over two or three days probably cost as much as the difference between a first-class hotel and a luxury hotel. The matter should be examined from the point of view that the "saving" may amount to nothing.

I gather that the subsistence allowance in Strasbourg at present is 94 francs a day if a Member pays everything, or 47 francs if the Government pay the hotel bill. That compares with 130 francs a day for delegations of the countries which are members of the European Parliament, namely, the Six. My experience is that most other delegations receive more. One of the Eire delegation told me that he got £5 a day allowance. Our delegation's somewhat niggardly allowance has sometimes been commented on by members of other delegations, not only to me but to other hon. Members.

Another point is that when attending committee meetings between sessions one is given nothing in advance, either in sterling or foreign exchange, and one must claim one's expenses back afterwards. I understand that now one has to spend all of one's foreign exchange allowance and then one gets paid back afterwards in sterling. I have had no experience of this myself not having been on a delegation since the recent restrictions came in, but I should be grateful if that could be looked into, since it is rather hard on individuals.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Frederick Mulley)

Is the hon. Member suggesting that Members have to meet that expense out of the £50 allowance a year?

Sir R. Russell

No. I am not. I am saying only that it comes out of the conference allowance. Nevertheless, members of the delegation have to apply for it, get it themselves, and claim it back afterwards, and they are repaid in sterling. I should be grateful if the Minister could clear that point up, because I know that some people are a little anxious about it. At any rate, they have to pay it, I understand, from their own personal bank for the time being, and that may, in certain circumstances, cause temporary hardship.

I am glad to hear—I hope I am right in this—that the entertainment allowance for the whole delegation is increased from — I believe it was—£375 to £500 a year. I hope I am right in that, because up to the present it has not been enough for more than what one may call a very good supper party per year to which all other delegations and the officers of the Assembly and local dignitaries in Strasbourg were invited.

I can remember at least two very good parties given by our delegation which went down very well with members of the other delegations. I gather that tile allowance just about covered that and not much more—at any rate, there was not enough over for covering the expense of entertaining a delegation to lunch. I remember the chairman giving the whole of our delegation a very good lunch once, and I gather that the French have done the same recently. With the allowance as it was, I gather that it would be impossible to do that—certainly to give lunch to more than one delegation. I hope this may be looked into, because it looks very bad that this country, above all, cannot afford to entertain foreign delegations when they have entertained us so well.

I gather, also, that the alternative to this cut in travel from first-class to economy class was to cut the size of the delegation. The size of the delegation, I am glad to see, is now up to nearly full strength, 18 representatives and, looking at the book for January, 17 substitutes. This is a great improvement on what it has been over the last 10 years. I remember that at one time only 11 substitutes were appointed, and there was a large gap in the page for our delegation showing seven missing names. I always thought that looked bad when we were entitled to the same numbers as the French, the Germans and the Italians. The French and Germans, certainly, were nearly always at full strength, and they are now, though one might have found a couple of Italians missing. However, our delegation should not be less than the delegations of other countries when in our delegation we are entitled to 18. I am glad that that alternative was not adopted, but this proposition should not be presented to the delegation. Surely we can manage to look after our delegation in the normal way, as other countries look after theirs, and keep it up to strength as well?

The budget for our delegation for this financial year for the Council of Europe and Western European Union. according to the Civil Estimates, is £14,000 for each assembly. That is really trifling compared with the money spent on other items in the Civil Estimates—items which 1 shall not mention now, for to do so would be completely out of order.

Finally, I should like to ask what is to be the saving in foreign exchange? I suggest it will be absolutely microscopic. And what is the total saving overall. including the cost in sterling? Compared with other expenditures, this really must be quite ridiculous, and it is bad for our prestige. This is pettifogging on the part of the Treasury. I should like to see a much more broadminded outlook adopted to this comparatively small item in our national expenditure.

4.15 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Frederick Mulley)

I thank the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) for the very kind remarks which he made about the Foreign Office, and, in particular, the tribute which he paid to the staff of the Conference and Supply Department which, having myself been a delegate to these Assemblies for three years, I agree is wholly deserved. The Department does a very difficult job and, if I may say so on my own responsibility, often has to deal with rather difficult Members. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying what he did and for giving me, as an ex-delegate, an opportunity to add my own tribute.

The principle upon which these expenses are paid is the same as it has been over the 16 or 17 years during which the Council of Europe has been in existence. The basis has always been that we should try to meet, not necessarily the whole cost incurred by delegates, but all their out-of-pocket expenses, by which I mean the expenses which they incur by virtue of being delegates to the Assemblies.

Over the period, the only differences which have arisen have been where, inevitably, as the years have gone by, total costs have gone up. Inevitably, the allowances to delegates have also gone up. It was for that reason and against the background of the need for economy which is felt in all parts of the House, both as to economy of public expenditure and the saving of foreign exchange, that one of my right hon. Friends had discussions with members of the present delegations, and the changes which are proposed now are made with their approval.

I want to say how much we appreciate the readiness of delegates, without impeding their efficiency and with reasonable regard to their needs, to try to reduce the total cost to public expenditure and to make savings in foreign exchange.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of points under the headings of air travel, hotels and subsistence, entertainment, and a comparison of the expenses of our Members and Members of Parliament of other countries. It may be convenient if I try briefly to deal with each of those points in turn.

It has been agreed with all sections of the delegations that, as from 1st April next, for short journeys within Europe Members should travel by tourist or economy class rather than first class. I do not share the view that this is in any way a lowering of prestige. Frequently when I was Minister of Aviation, I travelled as a tourist class passenger in aircraft where there were first-class seats and did not in any way feel that it resulted in any shortfall in prestige. Certainly I thought it only proper if I had to make an urgent journey, when there were tourist seats available and the first-class portion was fully booked, that I should travel in that way rather than pull strings to have first-class passengers turned off. I did not and would not do that.

Sir R. Russell

I have often done that myself when there were no first-class seats available.

Mr. Mulley

As a member of the Council of Europe delegation, frequently I travelled tourist class because it seemed to me that the short journey to Paris did not justify the additional charge to public funds. But there is no question of this being a decision which compels delegates to do so. It was arranged by agreement with them because they, for their part, naturally wanted a number of other points considered about entertainment, and so on. We discussed how best we could meet their needs and agreement has been reached as a temporary measure for next year that they will have tourist class rather than first-class travel by air, although first-class travel by rail is available if they wish to have that as an alternative. With regard to subsistence the principle which has been followed throughout is that which applies to Ministers and civil servants. Public expenditure bears the charge of the hotel, bed and breakfast, and an allowance is made for the rest of the day's subsistence. It is, therefore, not always accurate to compare the allowances which our delegates receive with those received by other countries if from those allowances they have to meet both their hotel charges and the cost of other meals during the day. For example, when our delegates stay at the Bristol Hotel, taking together their 47 francs subsistence and hotel bills they incur a charge of 169 francs per day, out of public funds, which is greatly in excess of the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman. If they stay at the Prince de Galles where, recently, the delegations have been staying, it is 149 francs a day. At Strasbourg they stay at the Sofitel Hotel, and it is intended that they should continue to stay there if they wish. Generally in Strasbourg there are some reductions for Council of Europe delegations if the whole delegation stays in the same hotel and here the hotel and subsistence allowance together come to 102 francs a day. Taking the total costs—and it is the total cost which falls on public funds —it is wrong to suggest that our delegates are unreasonably worse off than some of their colleagues in the Council from other countries.

Sometimes, particularly for a committee meeting where there is not the pressure for a large hotel so that the whole delegation can be together —because naturally for a committee meeting the British delegation would be two or three persons—they might be quite satisfied with first-class and not necessarily de luxe hotels. This seems reasonable, and I hope and believe that the delegation will so consider it, because in judging the amount that falls on public funds—and foreign hotels incur foreign exchange costs-we hope that members will feel that these proposals are reasonable.

On the question of entertainment, I can confirm that it has been agreed that the total entertainment for the delegation as a whole should go up from last year's figure of £370 to £500 for the next financial year, and also, as an exceptional measure, that the unexpended portion of the current year's allowance should be carried forward to next year because, unavoidably, a lunch or something had to be cancelled. Whether or not this is sufficient to have more than one supper party depends very much on the nature of the supper party provided. Certainly when I was a delegate during the year of the Labour delegation, we found it possible to entertain some of our colleagues to lunch, and also to have an evening party out of the allowance.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the allowance is divided between the party groups within the delegation, and it is up to the party groups to spend it in the way they think appropriate. It is not for the Government or anyone else to tell them how to go about doing it. While it might be nice to give lavish hospitality, I think that it would not be right for this to be thought at the present time a prior charge on public funds. Some entertainment of the kind that I have indicated is reasonable, and is provided, and I hesitate to recommend to the House that this should be greatly increased.

On the question of the comparison with other delegations, we do not come out at all badly if one considers that separately, as well as the great service of having all their arrangements made for them by the Conference and Supply Department. They have travel provided to the place of meeting. Their hotel is paid for and, in addition, local transport is provided either by cars from the embassy or, in Strasbourg, by special hired cars. In addition to their daily allowances delegates are permitted to claim the cost of taxi journeys incurred.

If the hon. Member looks at the figures for other countries he will find that usually everything is included. The amount given must cover not merely hotel bills and subsistence but all the other incidental expenses, like local transport. If the hon. Member adds in those other expenses he will see that the total amount given to our delegates compares favourably rather than otherwise with his figures.

As to the question of difficulties that arise when all the committee go to one place, and that the possibility that we might require our Members to be in less desirable hotels than their colleagues, I can assure the hon. Member that there is no such intention. Clearly, where it is convenient that bookings should be made by the committee in this way, this would be appropriate for our Members, too. But most committee meetings take place in Paris. The Council of Europe still has premises for committee meetings in Paris, and it is there that it has been suggested that some economies might conveniently be made by Members who do not seek to stay in the most expensive hotels. But we do not want any Member to feel that he will not be properly lodged and provided for while he is there.

As to the question of claims afterwards, this system has been working for a long time and I have not yet heard any complaint about it. We can consider the matter, but one of the great difficulties is that if we allowed Members to incur additional expenses, over and above their hotel and basic daily allowances, we would not know what those extra expenses would amount to until after the conclusion of the visit, and even if Members were given a sum of money in advance the question would later arise of adjustments having to be made. I think that the present arrangement is convenient, although we shall be happy to look into the matter if problems arise.

From the point of view of authorising the use of foreign currency it is possible for Members to claim up to £5 a day additional to the sums received from public expenditure, up to a maximum of £25 a week, which would seem to meet most of their needs. There is no question of Members having to provide foreign currency for their Council of Europe or W.E.U. business out of their personal travel allowance.

As to the practice of the Council of Europe, I understand that when Members travel on behalf of the Council—for example, when the President travels on Council of Europe business—they travel tourist class. When I went to the United States as rapporteur on behalf of W.E.U. I went economy class. I think that for official journeys for the organisation, as distinct from journeys as members of national delegations, the system is to travel tourist class.

Next year's estimate is that the cost of the Council of Europe delegation will be £22,600 and of the Western European Union Assembly £9,000, making a total of £31,600. These costs are approximate, because they depend on the location of meetings and how many Members choose to go on each occasion.

We estimate, from the proposals made and agreed with the delegation, that we should save about £2,000 on air fares and another £500 on hotels. If, with the co-operation of delegates, we can save more, I am sure that this will be widely welcomed not only on both sides of the House but outside it.

I confirm that there is no intention of cutting down the number of delegates. Substitutes now—it was not the case years ago—attend both the W.E.U. and the Council of Europe Assembly. There is no change in the practice. In recent years more Members have gone because on some occasions we were thin on the ground, not because of any directive by the Government but because a number of our colleagues had not found it possible to be present. That, of course, is completely outside our control, but I would assure the hon. Member that, in our view —and, I think, in the view of the present delegation—what is proposed is reasonable. It is certainly the Government's wish that we should continue, as the Foreign Office has done over the years, to do what we can to make arrangements for our Members.

However, if they wish to discuss these matters or have alternative suggestions which, within the total sum, could he accommodated, I should be very happy to see the new delegation, as I and my predecessors have always been happy to discuss these matters with previous delegations. With these assurances, I hope that the hon. Member can be satisfied that there is no great plot to attack either the delegates themselves or the very important work which they do.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Four o'clock.