§ 2.52 p.m.
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE) rose to move, That this House approves the raising from £6.50 to £8.50, with effect from January 1, 1972, of the limit upon the daily allowance payable to Lords attending sittings of this House or of Committees of the House. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Yesterday, in answer to a Question for Written Answer by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I announced that the Government had decided that the limit on the daily attendance allowance for Peers should be raised from the current rate of £6.50 to £8.50. This allowance, as your Lordships know, covers the reimbursement of expenses actually incurred within the permitted maximum. I regard this, and I hope your Lordships too will regard it, as a modest but significant increase in your Lordships' attendance allowance, and I trust that the House will agree to the Motion I am moving to-day.
§ Perhaps I should add that when I repeated a Statement on the remuneration of Members of Parliament and ministerial salaries on December 6, a number of noble Lords raised with me the whole question of pensions. On that, I should like merely to confirm what I said then. I took careful note of the representations which were made to me then across the Floor of the House and the representations made to me subsequently. I have already undertaken to ensure that those representations in this particular area will be carefully considered, and I 1266 should like just to confirm to noble Lords that this is in fact being done. My Lords, I beg to move.
§ Moved, That this House approves the raising from £6.50 to £8.50, with effect from January 1, 1972, of the limit upon the daily allowance payable to Lords attending sittings of this House or of Committees of the House.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
§ 2.54 p.m.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. This modest increase comes at a very appropriate time of the year. It is worth recalling, in the light of one or two remarks I want to make, that these allowances have gone up by something like 130 per cent. since 1964. The figure was three guineas a day until the Lawrence Report. The 130 per cent. is not an official figure it is obviously a bit more than that. When I say this, I appreciate that the noble Earl has difficulties in matters of this kind, as any Leader of the House would have. The situation in the House of Lords has changed somewhat in recent years. A great deal of work is done here, and an increasing number of Peers are I think finding difficulties. Whereas I should not wish to discuss in any way what is proposed for another place, I certainly do not regard anything that is suggested for them as in any way over-payment at all. The fact remains that they also will be receiving certain expense allowances.
It is just for consideration, though I certainly do not press it now, whether at some time the Boyle Committee ought to be invited to consider the position of Members of the House of Lords. I am choosing my words, I hope, with great care and great moderation and I am not even suggesting that that should specifically be done. What I am suggesting is that there are still a number of noble Lords, especially those who come from the far North or the far West, who have difficulties, and will have difficulties even with this quite considerable increase. It has always been to me something of an anomaly that a Scottish Peer is able to claim his travelling expenses even if he does not attend a third of the time, whereas a Peer living in the North of England is not able to. Some noble Lords have 1267 to put their hand in their pocket quite deeply to come down here, say because of a three-line Whip or some such occasion.
What I would ask the noble Earl is this. He is always extremely accessible to any noble Lord. May we have discussions informally? If noble Lords in the House wish something more formal, perhaps we could consider that. I think, however, in the first instance it is a matter for some informal private talks in relation to pensions and other relevant questions. I know the noble Earl has given some attention to pensions. It is a very difficult question, I admit, but it may well be that we ought in fact to consult the House a little more widely. With that, I welcome this increase, and I certainly acknowledge that the noble Earl has done everything he can within the conventions at the moment.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, I should like to say, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, that we think that the noble Earl the Leader of the House is establishing a fine reputation as a good shop steward for the movement we have in this House. I wish to dissent a little from what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. It would be misleading to quote 130 per cent. increase since 1964. While that may be factually correct, it is based on the assumption that £3 in 1964 was an adequate amount for expenses. I should not like to sec 130 per cent. in the headlines to-morrow as the increase in the attendance allowance.
§ 2.58 p.m.
LORD SHIN WELLMy Lords, I wonder whether I may raise a question which may not be strictly relevant to the Motion moved by the noble Earl the Leader of the House. It has reference to the privileges of Members of your Lordships' House. I was for many years a Member of the other place and it was a custom for Members there to pay for notepaper and envelopes they used. In recent years, however, a privilege was conceded to honourable Members in the other place of something like £25 a year allowance for notepaper and envelopes used by them. When I came to your Lordships' House I discovered that one had to pay for envelopes and notepaper. It is not a very large amount. I have had 1268 three bills presented to me, and I want to assure your Lordships that I have paid every penny, so I am not in difficulty. However, it seems to me anomalous that Members of your Lordships' House should have to pay for the provision of notepaper which in amount may vary as between Members. Some have considerable correspondence, as I have myself, while others may have a limited correspondence. It seems to me that a privilege should be conceded to Members of your Lordships' House in this connection.
I am much more concerned about privileges and concessions of the character I have ventured to specify than I am about an increase in the attendance allowance, though naturally noble Lords welcome that concession. Will the noble Earl the Leader of the House give this matter consideration, because it seems to me that, quite apart from the expense involved, which is not a great deal, it is anomalous and illogical that Members of your Lordships' House should have to pay for stationery used by them, whereas Members of the other place have an allowance of something like £25.
LORD INGLEWOODMy Lords, bearing in mind the headlines in to-morrow's Press which the noble Lord has referred to, may I ask my noble friend to confirm once again that the so-called "attendance allowance" is in no sense automatic, and that every penny that a noble Lord claims, whether he claims the whole or a part, is in fact repayment of expenses actually incurred in attending your Lordships' House, and that if he spends more than the attendance allowance he is not able to recover that cost?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I cannot speak again, but by leave of the House and on a point of correction, I think perhaps the figure I gave previously was extremely misleading in the context and it is necessary that it should be corrected. It was really intended to show that successive Leaders have done their best in the matter.
§ LORD OAKSHOTTMy Lords, before my noble friend the Leader of the House replies, may I ask one question in clarification? Does this proposed increase have to be approved by the House of Commons and carried on the House of Commons Vote?
§ LORD ORR-EWINGMy Lords, before my noble friend replies, may I say that my arithmetic makes it a 31 per cent. increase between 1964 and 1972, and the all-items cost-of-living index in the same period has gone up from 107 to 156.4, a rise of 50 per cent. That shows that relative to the position in 1964 your Lordships are very much worse off.
LORD LEATHER LANDMy Lords, as usual I want to be helpful. In his welcome Statement, the noble Earl the Leader of the House made reference to pensions. I have a fear that some bright sub-editor on one of the newspapers might put up a heading to-morrow morning "Pensions for Peers". If it is the fact, I should like the noble Earl to indicate to us that such pensions as he mentioned were pensions to certain people who are now Members of your Lordships' House but that those pensions are in respect of services which they rendered in the House of Commons.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the care with which they have received my Statement. I can of course confirm straight away that my noble friend Lord Inglewood is right. I can also make it quite clear, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, that what we are talking about here are the pensions which some Members of your Lordships' House may or may not receive as a result of their service in another place. I am not absolutely certain, having regard to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, whether his electronic mind has functioned correctly, but he is a skilful mathematician and I certainly would not wish to query the estimate which he has given.
I should like to say straight away that in this as in other matters, I will bear in mind the problems with which Members of your Lordships' House are faced, whether they come from the far North or the far West, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned, or indeed from the far East or the deep South, for that matter. This is a matter which is in my mind and I am very willing to enter into discussions, be they informal or more formal, with noble Lords. To begin with, I think possibly the maximum informality might probably be desirable in this not indelicate area. Certainly such discussions could well cover the sort of 1270 question which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has raised, although it is my understanding that any letter which he writes with his own fair and beautiful hand in this House and on House of Lords' notepaper he is not charged for, so far as I know, or indeed for the envelope which enfolds it. But this is the sort of matter which could well be discussed, I would hope informally to begin with.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.