HL Deb 16 December 1964 vol 262 cc441-53

2.53 p.m.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD) rose to move, That this House, having taken note of the Statement made by the Leader of the House on 17th November, 1964, (Hansard, cols. 496-499), approves the proposals, contained therein:

  1. (i) to increase from three to four-and-a-half guineas the limit upon the daily allowance payable to Peers attending sittings of the House or of Committees of the House;
  2. (ii) to replace the existing limit on the allowance for travel by road which is payable to Peers attending the House for the purposes of their parliamentary duties by a limit of fourpence-half-penny per mile.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion stand- ing in my name on the Order. Paper. The House will recall that on November 17 I informed your Lordships of the Government's attitude to the Report of the Lawrence Committee on Remuneration of Ministers and Members of Parliament.

I indicated that the Government accepted this Report, but intended to modify certain of the recommendations. They intended, however, to implement those proposals which related to Members of this House, other than Ministers, without modification.

This discussion—and I gather that several noble Lords, including the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, will follow me—will enable another place to take into account your Lordships' views on our own allowances, when they come to make the necessary provision by Resolution, as I understand they have in mind to do on Friday of this week. The House will have an opportunity of discussing the Lawrence Report as a whole when we receive from another place the Ministerial Salaries and Members' Pensions Bill early next year. Therefore, if the House will allow me, I will confine my remarks to-day to the two improvements as detailed in the Motion.

First, I will deal with the daily attendance allowance. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rea, who pointed to the awkwardness of the phrase, I am not particularly in favour of this term, for it can be misconstrued, although it is not easy, perhaps, to point to a better one. The 4½ guineas which the Government recommend is for payment that may be made to Members of this House, other than Ministers and other salaried office holders—for example, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chairman of Committees and Lords of Appeal in Ordinary—for any expenses certified by them as incurred for the purpose of attending at Sittings of this House or of Committees of this House. Should the payment of a salary to the Leader of the Opposition and Opposition Chief Whip be established, as it well may be by new legislation, these two holders would also be precluded.

The Government, in recommending this increase, do not believe it is necessary to make basic changes in the system governing this allowance, which was established during the period of the late Administration by the Resolution of 1957.

The increased allowance will be payable for all attendances during the present Session of this Parliament, and in this respect your Lordships are being treated similarly with Members of another place, whose increase in pay is being backdated to the beginning of this Session. I trust that this is clear and is acceptable to your Lordships' House.

The Government feel that retired Law Lords who may sit in Judicial Sittings of this House should be entitled to receive the daily expense allowance in respect of those days when they attend a Judicial Sitting. This is not explicitly referred to in this particular Motion, but will be covered by the Resolution which will shortly be before the House of Commons. I would mention that these retired Law Lords undertake these duties without receiving any reward for so doing, other than the repayment of travel expenses, and I am sure the House would agree it is right and proper to make this provision.

I now come to the second proposal, which is to amend what the Lawrence Committee considered to be an unsatisfactory system. I refer to the claims for travelling expenses when Peers attend sittings of the House by motor car. I would emphasise that there is to be no change in the present arrangements for claims by Peers who come by train—namely, that they are entitled to the first-class return rail fare between the nearest station to their residence and London. At present, claims for travel by motor car are restricted to the cost of petrol personally incurred in the use of a private motor car, and these claims are assessed on mileage and the average fuel consumption of the motor car. The total claim for any single journey may not exceed the cost of a first-class rail fare between the station nearest to the permanent residence of the Peer and London.

This is a complicated system, which involves the assessment of the fuel consumption of each car, and it has resulted in criticisms and misunderstandings. The Government have accepted the Committee's view that this should be changed and that the system used should be on the same lines as that adopted in the House of Commons. In future, the allowance for travel by private motor car will be within the limit of 4½d. per mile, which is the general rate per mile for first-class rail travel. The Government intend to pay this allowance at a flat rate of 4½ d. per mile, whatever the size of the motor car. This new travel allowance will come into force from midnight on December 18, subject to the passing of the Resolution in another place on that day. My noble friend Lord Shepherd, the Government Chief Whip, who is deeply versed in these matters, will reply to any debate that follows, but I would, if I may, commend this Motion, which I now beg to move.

Moved, That this House, having taken note of the Statement made by the Leader of the House on November 17, 1964, (Hansard, cols 496-499), approves the proposals, contained therein:

  1. (i) to increase from three to four-and-a-half guineas the limit upon the daily allowances payable to Peers attending Sittings of the House or of Committees of the House;
  2. (ii) to replace the existing limit on the allowance for travel by road which is payable to Peers attending the House for the purposes of their Parliamenttary duties by a limit of fourpence-halfpenny per mile.—(The Earl of Longford.)

2.59 p.m.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for having explained his Motion and for what he has said. I do not think that I have anything to add, except to ask one question and to make an observation. My question is this. I remember that, when this subject was mentioned earlier on in this Session, my noble friend Lord Jessel asked the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether the allowance for motor cars, which it was proposed to give to your Lordships, was the same as the allowance which civil servants have for their motor cars. I believe he thought there was some difference and that the allowance proposed was rather less. I do not know whether that is so, but, if it is so, I wonder why it is so and whether the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, can tell us why there is a difference between these two allowances. A motor car runs the same, whether it is run by one of your Lordships or by a civil servant, and I should like to know whether there is this distinction and, if so, why.

The observation I have to make is this—and this is in no way a criticisms of the figure which has been agreed by the Government, because I think that it was the figure proposed by the Lawrence Committee. I must say that, from the point of view of those of us who are not very good at figures, it strikes me as rather unfortunate that 4½ guineas a day should have been the amount selected. I think it will be difficult to add up and difficult for the Accountant. Having said that for those who sit on these Benches, I believe, we are grateful to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for what he has said.

3.1 p.m.

LORD INGLEWOOD

My Lords, I hope it will not be thought presumptuous for a new Member of your Lordships' House to intervene in this debate to make one point. I think it is most relevant. I know that I am not alone in thinking this way, because the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, perhaps among others, wants to elaborate on it. First of all, although I am so new here, I should like to make it clear that I understand the distinction between remuneration and the recovery of expenses, and that nothing I say concerns remuneration. I appreciate that services here are not remunerated. I am concerned entirely with the question of the amounts for out-of-pocket expenses necessarily incurred.

I think it is strange that we should be asked to approve a system which is so unfair between individuals, depending upon where they may happen to live. This cannot be excused solely by the accident of geography. For instance, a Peer living in or near London and working part or whole time in London or the Home Counties can attend here regularly and be a useful Member of your Lordships' House with a minimum of disturbance to his family life or his work, on which he depends for his livelihood, and with no problem of a second home or lodging, however mean it may be. His out-of-pocket expenses will be small, and on the present system of calculation, even on the three guineas basis, he ought to be able to recover the greater part, if not the whole, of his outgoings.

Contrast this with the circumstances of a Peer living at a distance; and here I must declare my interest, but I am sure that other noble Lords are in the same position. To come to London means a complete break with family and business life for several days, and often involves one or even two night journeys on the train. Further, since Parliamentary work must have some continuity if it is to have any real value, a Peer coming from a distance must maintain a second home or some sort of lodging in London. It is impossible to suppose that he can be a useful Member of this House, where, unless he is lucky, there is not even a locker in which he can keep his papers, if he has "to live out of a suitcase" in one hotel bedroom and then in another. And the rent of that lodging will continue whether we are sitting here or not.

Your Lordships will therefore see that, while the Londoner can recover very nearly the whole of his expenses, or the whole of them, those of us who live far away inevitably incur much larger expenses and can, in practice, recover only a small part of them. According to my calculation, a Peer living at a distance will find that he is out-of-pocket by at least £1, 000 a year. If that comes from his taxed income, it is in these days a large slice of anybody's income, and it will be larger still if what we are told is going to happen in the next Budget is put into effect.

Since I have been a Member of your Lordships' House I have taken careful note of those who attend regularly, and, leaving out of account Members of both Front Benches, it is clear that the great majority of Members who attend here regularly live in or near London. Since London is the capital City, it is understandable that what one might call the City-Chelsea axis will be strongly represented here. But wisdom is to be found not only in the territory traversed by the No. 11 bus. Noble Lords who live and work at a distance are with us regularly in only very small numbers. This may be understandable, and maybe it can be explained by the very heavy outlay involved, but it is not a healthy situation.

Surely the Upper House, just as much as another place, should be in touch with people and events in all parts of Great Britain, even if we are not concerned in the same way with constituency boundaries, if we are to fulfil our purpose, and not least to-day when we are continually exhorted by the Government to think more in terms of regional government and regional development. People in different parts of these islands do not all think the same as those who live in London and the Home Counties, and surely their views should be heard here just as much as any others.

While I can understand that any system for the recovery of out-of-pocket expenses must be related to attendance in this Chamber, to base it on this factor alone must be unjust. I appreciate the work done by the Lawrence Committee, but, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has said, their Report is not Holy Writ, and the few paragraphs referring to your Lordships' House are much less profound than the forty or so earlier pages which refer mainly to another place. This is not a future problem; it is with us now, and we have a chance to solve it if we are not too timid. To leave the system as it is is not only unfair to many Members of your Lordships' House as individuals, but also unfair to our country and its people whom we are here to serve.

3.6 p.m.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a minute or two, but there is here a matter of principle that I want to mention—it is one to which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has just drawn attention. I agree entirely with the Resolution and with the way it has been moved by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and I am not questioning any of these things. What I am questioning is the principle of travelling expenses. Travelling expenses at the moment are covered by the rail fare from the Member's nearest station to London. That is quite all right if Members live near the station. But there are a number of noble Lords and noble Ladies, of whom I am one (I am sure there are many in Scotland who are in the same predicament), who live a long way from the station.

I travel twice a week from Scotland, in the train, as do other noble Lords, to come here, and to get to the station I drive 22 miles. I cannot go by myself in a car; I have to take somebody with me, in order to take the car back, because it is wanted on the farm. Twenty-two miles is a long way, but that journey is nothing like so long as it will be if Dr. Beeching does away with our railway, when I shall have to travel 90 miles twice a week to get to a station. He has not done it yet, and I do not know if he will. But I look with some anxiety to the thought of 90 miles twice a week, because 22 miles twice a week is quite a lot. The 22 miles I have to do—and there are other noble Lords who live further away—cannot be included in expenses; it is not part of one's expenses, because travel ends at the railway station, and you begin to count your travel from the railway station to London. I think this lays quite a considerable hardship on those who are very keen to take an active part in the work of your Lordships' House.

I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that expenses might start from home, because that is where one has to go. If one is left at a railway station 22 miles from home, it is impossible to walk; and if there is no public transport it is necessary to hire a car, or to get someone to pick one up. These are quite expensive items, but they are not chargeable. When the noble Earl the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, are thinking about this question, I should like them to look at this point.

I must declare an interest, because this is my own experience. But I am sure that there are other noble Lords, in Scotland, in Wales, in Northumberland or in Cumberland, such as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who have to come a long way to get to the nearest point from which their expenses start. I suggest that our expenses might start from the moment we close our own front door and go out into the cold night air in order to catch the night train. Similarly, we may arrive at our home station at six o'clock in the morning and, of course, have to get home again. These are inconvenient hours, and it is impossible to get public transport. As I say, I should like the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to give some attention to this matter.

3.10 p.m.

LORD BOWLES

My Lords, may I ask your Lordships' indulgence in asking a question in my maiden speech? On the back of the Peers' travel and general expenses information sheet which I was handed the other day, it is said: Claims for incidental expenses, such as taxi fares, are not admissible. As stated on page. 42 of the Lawrence Report, Mr. Butler, in moving the Resolution which instituted the allowance, said: The claims can, therefore, cover not only subsistence costs—such as hotel charges and meals—but also miscellaneous travelling costs such as taxi fares and bus fares…."—[Official Report, Commons, Vol. 573, col. 231, July 9, 1957.] In the last paragraph but one the Lawrence Report says: Any reasonable calculation at current prices of subsistence costs, i.e. charges for meals and lodgings in London at a standard not extravagant but appropriate to the dignity of the House (to which must be added miscellaneous costs such as taxi and bus fares), will in our judgment show that our recommended figure is a reasonable maximum. Will my noble friend, when he comes to reply, make clear to me whether, if like the noble Baroness I arrive at King's Cross, I can have a taxi here and include the charge as an incidental expense in my claim?

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

My Lords, I should like, if I may, to say a few words about something the Lord Privy Seal said which was not included in the Statement made on November 17, 1964, and which is not covered by the terms in the Motion before your Lordships. He told us that the 4½ guineas allowance (which is, I think, intended to cover all those incidental expenses to which the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, referred) would in future apply to retired Law Lords who come up to discharge judicial duties. I should not like to pass from this Motion without saying a word or two of welcome to that proposal. I know, and I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor knows, what a valuable part they have played in past years in coming up from the country and, it may be—one does not know—from as remote a place as that in which the noble Lady resides, to serve here judicially for quite a considerable time without any remuneration, and without any payment of expenses. I am glad that the Government have found it possible to make this provision, and it is for those reasons that I am glad to have an opportunity of expressing a welcome to them.

THE EARL OFLONGFORD

I thank the noble Viscount very much.

3.13 p.m.

LORD COLYTON

My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Inglewood in what he said, and also to declare my own interest as one who lives a good way from London. I should like to ask this question. In Mr. Butler's statement in moving the Resolution on July 9, 1957, he talked about hotel charges, meals, taxi fares and bus fares, but he made no reference whatever to secretarial assistance. I think most noble Lords would agree that those of us who take an active part in the work of this House must have secretarial assistance in order to write our speeches and carry on our correspondence. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he replies, if he can say whether the Lawrence Committee, in raising the attendance fee from 3 guineas to 4½ guineas, were basing the change simply on the categories to which Mr. Butler referred, or whether they were also taking into account the modern requirements of a Peer in regard to the provision of secretarial services if he is to carry out his duties properly?

3.15 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I am quite sure that my noble friend the Leader of the House, and the Government, will be very pleased indeed with the welcome that this Motion has received from the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. Perhaps I may congratulate the noble Viscount on his new rank within our House.

A number of interesting points have been raised, although quite frankly, they are not new. I have certainly heard the words of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, before. The basic difficulty in dealing with this matter still must lie within the construction and Membership of this House. When we had the first expense allowance of 3 guineas it was felt that this should be a figure which would meet the incidental expenses of a Member attending this House for such items as Mr. Butler referred to in his speech of July 9, 1957: meals, taxi fares, bus fares, perhaps the purchase of newspapers, and the like. I do not think it was ever intended, or could possibly have been intended, that an expense allowance should be made available to a Member of your Lordships' House, no matter how necessary it might be, for the payment of secretarial assistance, as the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, suggested.

I think we must bear in mind, and perhaps never forget, that we are a non-elected House, although we are an important House. But in view of our membership I think there must be some question as to the sums of money that are made available for us to perform our duties. I do not suggest that no alteration should ever be made. No doubt some alteration will be made in the years to come, but I would suggest that it would have to go alongside reconstruction of our membership. That is, to me, the main difficulty.

I do not think we should increase the amount of money that a Peer could put against, shall we say, his personal income for expenses. I must admit that I tried to do this in my very early days in your Lordships' House. I was rudely asked, and correctly asked, by the Revenue that as I had No 1ncome arising from your Lordships' House, how then could I have an expense? That is equally the position for any person outside your Lordships' House. I would suggest that it would not be practical to suggest that we should make a change or have a new rule to govern your Lordships' House when it would be different for those persons outside the House.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the opinions which have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, but I am afraid I cannot give him any hope that there can be any change in that respect.

In regard to the speech which was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, may I say that here again we appreciate her difficulty, and that of other noble Lords, and perhaps the increasing difficulties, as she suggested, by the closure of railway lines. I believe that, in her case, instead of having a distance of only fifteen miles between her home and the railway station, she may well face a distance of 60 miles. But here again we have the same difficulty. No doubt there is a bus service available. The noble Lady shakes her head. I was hoping there was, as it would have made my argument a good deal easier.

So far as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is concerned, if there was a bus service, a train service or a coach service, then I would suggest that the noble Lord would have to use it, because I think it is only right, when we are using public expenditure, that we should use the transport which would involve the most reasonable cost to the Exchequer. But in the case of the noble Lady, we have been able to help her a little by amending our own local rules—if I may use that phrase—so that she will be able, as would any noble Lord, to claim 4½ d. a mile for her car journey from her home to the railway station. This is an improvement. It did not exist before, and that is a stage further.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether that applies if I drive myself, or can I claim the 4½ d. if I have to be driven there and back? This happens at midnight, and they have to meet me at 6 a.m. the next morning; and there is no public transport at all.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I am afraid I can only say to the noble Lady that it depends on the distance she goes by car; if she is driven for the distance, or if she has a driver, she can claim only for the distance from her home to the railway station. It could not include the return journey of the car.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

The noble Lord means that the car just has to wait at the railway station? It has to go to the railway station and back. It does not fly back.

LORD SHEPHERD

I expected that I was going to be in difficulties on this matter but I can only tell the noble Lady that this is the position so far as the Treasury have been able to grant: that she can claim for 4½ d. a mile for the mileage from her home to the nearest main-line railway station.

In regard to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bowles—and I am quite sure the House will not permit the noble Lord to get away with those few words as a maiden speech—I think it is clear that, so far as London is concerned, a Peer should use the cheapest form of transport. Certainly we have a good bus and Underground service and I should not have thought that there was any reason to put a special claim to the Treasury for taxi fares, say, from King's Cross or Euston to Westminster. It is quite clear that it has been accepted that any taxi fares we may pay should come out of what will now be our 4½ guineas.

My Lords, in regard to the question which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington put to me, I would tell him that when civil servants choose to use a car instead of public transport on official business they are reimbursed at the public transport rate of 3¼ d. a mile, which is less than the allowance gran: ed to your Lordships. However, a higher rate is available when civil servants—and I think this must be remembered—are obliged to use their cars on official duties. The rate then varies according to the mileage, but it starts at about 7½ d. a mile. I think that that will perhaps answer the noble Lord's question. If a civil servant uses his car voluntarily he receives only 3¼. a mile, but if he is obliged to use his car in the performance of his duty then he gets a higher rate than we in your Lordships' House receive.

I think that I have dealt with all the questions put to me. I will not say that I have been able to be very sympathetic or helpful to noble Lords and Ladies opposite, but I will undertake to give the matter some consideration with my colleagues on the Whips' Committee, which looks into this matter from time to time.

On Question, Motion agreed to.