§ 3.35 p.m.
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE) rose to move, That this House approved that in future the condition of regular attendance as a qualification for 1301 reimbursement of the travelling expenses incurred by Peers for the purposes of their Parliamentary duties should be dispensed with. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I should like to preface my brief remarks by filling in the background to the Motion which I am proposing to your Lordships to-day. When in 1946 it was agreed that Members of your Lordships' House should be reimbursed the cost of their travelling expenses, the House agreed that the condition of such reimbursement should be regular attendance. A "regular attender" was defined by the Whips Committee, who administer the present scheme, as being a Peer who attends more than one-third of the Sittings of the House in any one month.
§ Subsequently, in 1947, this rule, which we have come to know as the "assiduity rule"—a rather charming phrase—was relaxed so far as Peers living in Scotland were concerned. These favoured few have to attend only one-third of those Sittings when Scottish Business is being taken in order to qualify for reimbursement of travelling expenses. I think your Lordships have always felt that this was reasonable for those living some long way from Westminster. Nevertheless, I personally have thought for some time that the application of the rule of regular attendance has been somewhat undesirable and has also been unfair in its application. For instance, it seems to me wrong that a Peer living North of the Scottish Border and attending possibly less frequently than a Peer living just South of the Scottish Border should be able to claim his travelling expenses, whereas his fellow Peer is unable to do so.
§ Secondly, this is a House which rightly prides itself on the wide range of experience and expertise contained in its membership. This means that certain Peers who are experts in a particular subject and live many miles away from Westminster may wish only to attend the House to speak in a particular debate, and yet have to bear the expense of coming here. This may inhibit them from attending, and this is a loss to the House as a whole. Finally, although I wish to tread very diffidently here, I hold it to be undesirable that the effectiveness of a Party trying to get out its full vote, say, on a Three-Line Whip, should be 1302 hindered because its less regular attenders, or some of them, may not be able to afford to come, or to do so only with difficulty, and support their Party in the Division Lobby.
§ In view of the substantial improvements that have been made in the remuneration and facilities available to Members of another place, which none of us grudge, I have thought it right that I should propose this small concession to your Lordships' House. I have "cleared" this through the usual channels and it has the blessing of the appropriate authorities if your Lordships decide that it is right. I hope that this concession will go some way to help Peers who live a considerable distance away from Westminster. I should like to assure noble Lords who live a considerable distance North of the Border that I am not motivated in this context by any "fell Sassenach" designs.
§
In proposing this concession to your Lordships' House, I am aware that it could possibly be open to some abuse. When Lord Addison moved the Resolution in 1946 which made provision for travelling expenses to be paid, he said:
Nobody wishes that it should be used to provide free trips to London for people who are not doing their duty as Members of your Lordships' House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21/5/46; col. 334.]
I am quite sure that this sentiment will continue to be observed by all Members of your Lordships' House. But, with this in mind, I suggest that the Whips Committee should have discretion to disallow such claims for travelling expenses that they may think have been improperly incurred. I am quite certain that this is not something which will come up, but it is a safety net which we should insert if we are going to relax the so-called "assiduity rule". I beg to move.
§ Moved, That this House approved that in future the condition of regular attendance as a qualification for reimbursement of the travelling expenses incurred by Peers for the purposes of their Parliamentary duties should be dispensed with.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, we welcome this concession. I should like to express personal appreciation to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, because it has been very much on his initiative, after various valiant attempts by other noble Lords on behalf of those who did not 1303 benefit under the House of Commons pension scheme, that this Motion has come before your Lordships' House. His statement was valuable. I always thought that the Conservative Party never required a Three-Line Whip, and that this sensitive reference to the need for Three-Line Whips was out of consideration for Opposition Parties. I do not know whether the Liberals have Three-Line Whips. It would be absurd if an important and crucial vote were to be determined by whether one noble Lord was rich enough to come up to London or whether he thought that under the old dispensation he was likely to fulfil the quota of one-third attendance.
This is a worthwhile concession. I am sure that noble Lords will wish to take note of the fact that in the same way in which we speak upon our honour here, there will be a certain discretion and that noble Lords will actually come and work when they claim the expenses. I am bound to say that this is an act of justice towards England. Speaking as an Irishman, I have always felt that the English were hardly treated in the matter of travel, as we know they are in other respects such as representation. But I will not go into the constitutional misfortunes of the Act of Union. But in this matter some redress has been made towards the Sassenachs and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, should not be ashamed of his part in it.
§ LORD WADEMy Lords, I will not enter into the interesting subject of Three-Line Whips, but I should like to add my support and that of my Liberal colleagues to this proposal. It is a just and fair one. One of the most important points is that distinguished Members of your Lordships' House who are able to contribute to the debates on some particular matter on which they are experts should not in any way be deterred from doing so. I feel that this is a proper step to take.
LORD INGLEWOODMy Lords, as a Member of this House who lives a long way from London and yet not one who would have incurred any more travelling expenses over the last few years if there had not been an assiduity rule to satisfy, may I say that I regard this as a great step forward? It is important that 1304 Scottish Peers and English Peers should be treated on the same basis. I have never been able to see why there should be a distinction drawn in the case of two Peers, both using the same main line—say, from Berwick-on-Tweed or Carlisle. The one living North of the Border can recover his travelling expenses under much simpler conditions than his colleague who lives 20 miles to the South but who travels up to London on the same train.
Furthermore, I hope that it will make your Lordships' House more representative. When I first had the honour to come here eight years ago, one of the things which struck me was that so large a proportion of the Members were from London or the Home Counties. I expected this, but I did not appreciate that it would be such a large proportion and that the distant parts of the country would be represented so very thinly on these Benches. Having made inquiries, I find that some Peers who live at a distance from London do find it difficult to attend for the reason given and I sincerely hope in the interests of the House as well as individuals, that others who can make a valuable contribution to the business of this House will now be able to attend more frequently.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, can I have an assurance from the noble Earl the Leader of the House that this proposition is a natural act of justice and that there is no anticipation of the gathering of the clans in readiness for a huge vote against some Members of your Lordships' House when we come to the very vexed and thorny issue of whether Britain should enter the Common Market?
§ LORD LOVATMy Lords, as a Peer from one of the most remote parts, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for this concession. There are only two Peers who live further North than I do—the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. Without it, I can assure your Lordships that we could not possibly attend the House, because a return ticket from Inverness costs £33.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I am grateful for the reception that this modest Motion has had. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that the justice, if it is justice, is purely natural.
On Question, Motion agreed to.