§ 3.14 p.m.
§ LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the present-day value in real terms of the three shilling luncheon voucher issued to lower paid workers in industry, when canteen facilities are not available.
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, since the present concession was announced in January, 1959, the real value of a three shilling (15p) voucher has fallen to approximately 8½p.
§ LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURYMy Lords, will my noble friend not agree that, if it was thought necessary fourteen years ago to have these luncheon vouchers available for lower paid staff, it is more than necessary to-day—as this Government has taken care of the lower paid workers—to be consistent, to upgrade the tax allowance against the needs of an increased value luncheon voucher?
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, of course I take my noble friend's point, but we must be careful that unfairness does not arise. Many employees do not receive luncheon vouchers and would resent any increase in the tax advantage which employees who are given vouchers enjoy over those who pay for their meal 1190 in full. I would remind the noble Lord that a daily luncheon voucher of 15p is equivalent to a tax-free payment of about £35 a year.
§ LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURYMy Lords, is the noble Earl aware that he has missed the point? When the voucher was first issued it was a supplement and any junior typist commuting into London could buy almost a lunch for that amount. To-day it will hardly buy a sandwich and a cup of coffee. Will my noble friend look at this matter again, because his answer is most unsatisfactory?
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, I am sorry to have given my noble friend an unsatisfactory answer, but I must stick to the point that the original luncheon voucher scheme was a tax concession.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, is the noble Earl aware that some of these lower paid workers, particularly young women, rely upon this lunch to keep them going throughout the day? Could the noble Earl say how much of this three shilling luncheon voucher is related to the protein value of the lunch? That is a most expensive part of the lunch and the part which I presume the Government intend this luncheon voucher to cover. Could the noble Earl tell me how much protein is contained in this particular lunch at three shillings?
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, I am very conscious of the pertinence of the noble Baroness's question because in trying to master this subject I myself went without lunch to-day, in my anxiety. What I must explain to her is that this is not a meal subsidy; this is a form of tax concession. It was designed originally to be the equivalent of an employer subsidy on a canteen meal and as such it is still a reasonable figure.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, can the noble Earl say what is the value of this three shilling voucher as compared with the point at which the freeze on prices was imposed?
§ LORD DOUGLASS of CLEVELANDMy Lords, can the noble Earl sustain his tax concession argument in the light 1191 of the tax concessions made to people with very high salaries, and who get a free meal, anyway?
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, I think that that question is missing the point, which is that luncheon vouchers are a form of remuneration and, as such, when above the limit originally announced as a concession by my noble friend Lord Amory in 1959, they are subject to tax.
§ LORD SEGALMy Lords, are the Government aware that among the lowest paid workers in industry are some of the Members of your Lordships' House, and would they give consideration to the issue of luncheon vouchers a little nearer home?
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, I could not be more delighted than to give consideration to that subject.
§ LORD PEDDIEMy Lords, do I correctly understand from the original reply of the noble Earl opposite that the attitude of the Government towards extending this tax concession was occasioned by what they believe to be resentment on the part of those who do not receive luncheon vouchers? Am I correctly interpreting what the noble Earl said?
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, the original reply answered the original Question. That was one part of the reply but was not the full reply.
§ LORD PEDDIEMy Lords, what significance does the noble Earl attach to that part of the reply?
§ LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURYMy Lords, I shall endeavour to raise this matter again on a further ocasion.
THE EARL OF GOWRIEMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that. If I may come back to the noble Lord opposite, I am afraid that in spite of the feeling of the House I must stand on this reply. I shall expand it in writing to him if he so wishes.
§ LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELANDMy Lords, when the noble Earl does that, will he give some evidence of what resentment has been expressed?—because 1192 I have never heard of this in all my experience in the trade union movement THE EARL OF GOWRIE: Yes, my Lords, I will.