HL Deb 23 July 1979 vol 401 cc1633-46

3.18 p.m.

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, I beg to move that the European Assembly (Pay and Pensions) Bill be read a second time. This Bill provides for the payment of salaries and pensions to our representatives to the European Parliament, for the payment of severance grants to those who lose their seats at future general elections of representatives and for an order-making power so that the Secretary of State may authorise the payment of allowances and facilities to assist representatives in the execution of their duties within the United Kingdom. It is therefore a short Bill for which it is necessary to seek your Lordships' approval now, so that the first payment of salary to our representatives may be made at the end of this month.

Last week this House expressed its thanks to noble Lords who had served in the nominated European Parliament, and there were expressions of goodwill from my noble friend the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, to those noble Lords who had secured election. The Parliament has now met for the first time—last week—and on behalf of Her Majesty's Government I should like to repeat, if I may, those expressions of congratulation to the noble Lords who were elected, and goodwill to them on starting their work in Europe.

All the Members who attended the nominated European Parliament were sent by their national Parliaments and were in receipt of their usual rates of salary. The only provision necessary on a Community scale was the reimbursement of the travelling and subsistence expenses of Members attending European Parliament sessions in Strasbourg or Luxembourg, or Community sessions there in Brussels. But the remuneration for elected representatives has not been so easy to decide, particularly because Parliamentarians from the different Member States receive such widely differing salaries. For instance, the basic salary of a Member of the German Bundestag is about £22,000; that of the Danish Member of the Folketing £12,000; and of Luxembourg Parliament, some £4,500.

The European Council concluded, in the light of this, that it was not possible to determine a common European salary system for the first set of elections. The United Kingdom Government were therefore a party to an agreement at the European Council on 4th and 5th December last year, and confirmed by the Council of Ministers a fortnight later, that the salaries of representatives should be paid from national funds at national rates and should be subject to national taxation. The previous Prime Minister reported this agreement to the House on his return from the European Council, and the Member States set about implementing it. By the time of their leaving office, however, the previous Government had not introduced the necessary legislation for the United Kingdom and that is why this Bill is before your Lordships' House today.

My Lords, I should now like to explain briefly the main provisions of the Bill. First, Clause 1 provides that our representatives in the European Parliament will be paid at the same annual rate as Members of the House of Commons. The rate of salary will take account of any change in the rate of MPs salaries, so that the arrangements are exactly on a par. However, the Government do not believe that it would be right to pay two full salaries from public funds to representatives who are already Members of Parliament and who therefore hold what I might call a dual mandate. In taking this view, we have noted the proposals which had been made in the other Member States of the Community for dealing with similar groups of Members. In Germany, legislation has already been enacted, providing for a single salary only. In France, Belgium and Italy, that is also proposed. In only two countries of the Community does it seem likely that an additional full salary will be paid; namely, in the Republic of Ireland and possibly, but not definitely, in Luxembourg, where legislation has yet to be introduced. In Denmark, legislation has been enacted for the additional salary to be abated and this is the proposal for the Netherlands. Strong representations were received during the proceedings on this Bill in the other place that a similar scheme should be adopted for the United Kingdom representatives.

In the light of those representations, the Government moved an amendment to the Bill on Committee stage in the other place to provide that representatives who are also Members of the House of Commons should receive two salaries; one, the ordinary salary as a Member of the House of Commons; and a second salary as representative equivalent to one-third of the House of Commons ordinary salary. That is what I meant by an " abated salary ". This the Government believe to be a fair compromise between the different positions which have been advanced.

In addition to basic salary and pensions, it is not unusual, of course, for elected representatives to receive allowances and facilities to enable them to carry out their duties. Members of the House of Commons do so. It was originally the understanding, from the European Council agreement in December, that the reimbursement of such matters as travelling and subsistence costs would be a matter for the European Parliament, as was the case for the nominated members. Therefore, the Bill as introduced made no provision for the payment of sums other than for salaries and pensions. It became clear, however, during the passage of the Bill in another place that some other Member States had either made provision in their legislation for the direct payment from national funds of some allowances, or had at least ensured that they had the facility for enabling them to do so. It was again represented that the United Kingdom representatives would have special problems in relation to their constituencies, some of which are of enormous size, if the European Parliament did not make adequate recompense for the extra travelling and subsistence expenses which our representatives would necessarily incur.

I should like to make the Government's position on this matter absolutely clear. We do not accept that there are any insuperable practical difficulties for the European Parliament in paying for all the necessary expenses of representatives. We believe that that is their responsibility and that the understanding created by the European Council in December 1978 should be enforced. It is certainly our wish that if necessary the United Kingdom representatives should be prepared to press this point. The European Parliament is, in fact, paying travel allowances to places of work within the Community, and some other allowances. However, if the European Parliament is not prepared to meet all legitimate claims for expenses within the United Kingdom, then the Government accept that there could have to be a role for the national authorities.

Within Clause 2, therefore, it will be possible for Parliament to determine, on orders presented by the Secretary of State to both Houses for Affirmative Resolution, whether representatives should receive such facilities for travel within constituencies, and for travel to and from London, either freely or on some restricted basis, and for administrative expenses. But I must emphasise that it is the Government's feeling that such facilities and allowances ought to be provided by the European Parliament.

So, my Lords, what I have referred to as the contents of the Bill refer only—for this is only a short Bill—to salaries and allowances. Finally, there are just two quick points. Clause 3 provides that representatives who lose their seats at a general election shall be entitled to three months' severance pay, or one-third of this for dual mandate Members. This is based on the House of Commons scheme. The remaining substantive clauses of the Bill, Clauses 4 to 6, deal with pension arrangements. They provide for the establishment, by order, of a pensions scheme closely related to the pension scheme for Members of the House of Commons. In this case, as is the case with all other pensions schemes made by subordinate legislation, the order will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure.

The Government see this Bill as a straightforward implementation of the international agreement entered into by the previous Administration. On certain matters, the Government were able to accede to strongly held views expressed during the passage of the Bill in the other place. We believe that we now have a Bill which represents the fairest way to proceed, so that the representatives of the people of the United Kingdom in the European Parliament receive an appropriate remuneration for their responsibilities. I beg to move.

Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Belstead.)

3.30 p.m.

Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM

My Lords, this Bill is part of the historic sequence of measures which stem from the decision that this country should join the European Economic Communities and take part in direct elections. It cannot be described as a momentous measure in itself, no doubt; and it will probably be greeted with something less than unabated rapture by those of my noble friends and other noble Lords who have been consistently unenthusiastic about the decision to join Europe itself. But it is a necessary step, one which flows naturally from the decisions mentioned. Therefore, on behalf of the Opposition, I would support the Bill. In doing so, I should like to thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his clear and very helpful introduction to it. I should also like to join him in an expression of good wishes to the new Members of the Assembly from your Lordships' House and from another place. The Minister has said that the Bill implements an agreement reached with our Community partners last December, and he has gone into a little of the background arising out of that agreement.

The Bill now before us is an improvement on the Bill as first introduced in another place. A number of changes were made in Committee in another place, including two major ones to which the Minister has alluded. Originally, the intention was that a Member of another place who was also elected to the Assembly, and so had what has been called a dual mandate, should get only his House of Commons pay and nothing extra for being a member of the Assembly. But now, under the Bill, he would get one third—as the Minister has mentioned—of a representative's pay in addition to his House of Commons pay. Again, the Bill made no provision at all for allowances to meet expenses; now it does contain power to provide allowances and facilities.

On the dual mandate, I believe it would have been quite monstrous to have failed to make some additional payment to a Member of another place who is also elected to the Assembly. I say that even though my party decided that Members of our own party should not be elected to both bodies. What I am not so sure about is whether the one third extra is the right amount. It is of course quite arbitrary; it has no logical basis. I suppose the only figures which would have any logical basis for dual membership would be either one full salary or two full salaries, and so any compromise is almost bound to be arbitrary. Even if it were possible to do so, I would not wish to suggest a change now. But what I would say is that we should look at this again later on, once we see how the system is working. Perhaps Lord Boyle's Committee should be asked to consider it at some future time. It would be more of a comfort to have some rational basis for the figure we choose. I mention that assuming that the Assembly is not given the task of deciding about these matters for the future.

There is one other point I want to mention, if I may, on the pay of a repre- sentative before turning to the question of allowances and facilities. In the debates in another place, there was a good deal of discussion of the fact that although the European election was on 7th to 10th June, representatives did not qualify for salary until last Tuesday, 17th July, and would not receive any money until about the middle of next month. That is very unsatisfactory and is a possible source of real hardship, for some representatives who left their previous jobs on election would not have been entitled to any pay for some five weeks or perhaps more. It was explained in another place that membership of the Assembly—the period of a representatives' office—ran from the day the Assembly met until the day before it meets after the next Assembly election.

It was also suggested—and no one challenged it, so far as I could see—that this was a situation which would not arise again: and that it arose this time only because this was the first election. But that is only partly true. It is true that for members of the Assembly who are re-elected, there will be no hiatus; their pay will continue next time without a break. And for the representative who is defeated a three month's severance grant will be payable. But, for all newly-elected Members of the Assembly, the problem will be always precisely the same as it has been this time. So it really is something, in my submission, that requires further attention before the next Assembly election; and one also wonders about by-elections in this context, too.

The most appropriate course would seem to be the one that applies to another place. Pay runs from the day after the election; and it would seem to be better for the Assembly representative if pay ran from election to election. There is perhaps an additional more minor reason for this. If the present system continues, a representative who is retiring might not be too conscientious about working and justifying his pay between the election at which he retires and the start of the new Session; whereas the newly-elected Member is not only more likely to be full of enthusiasm to get down to work from the moment of his election but indeed is very likely to be drawn into his Assembly work pretty well straight away, so the elector, by changing the system, might well get better value for money.

I come now to allowances and facilities. The Bill originally made no provision for these. It is much better now that it does do so. As I understand it, these are supposed to be the responsibility of the Assembly. It is certainly our view that they should be. I am sure that your Lordships in all parts of your Lordships' House will be very heartened indeed by the very firm line that the Minister has expressed on behalf of the Government this afternoon in which I would very strongly support him. But to the extent that they are not provided by the Assembly—that is, allowances and facilities—Clause 2 enables this Parliament to pass orders providing for them.

It is clearly very important that no Member should be out of pocket in carrying out his duties. Expenses are likely to be heavy, especially travelling costs. Unlike those of all the other countries, our Assembly Members represent constituencies. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has referred to those today. Those constituencies consist of some eight of our parliamentary constituencies. In some cases they are enormous, as the Minister has said. One—the Highlands of Scotland, I am informed—is nearly half the size of Scotland. That representative could well cover thousands of miles a month within her constituency alone if she is to do the job properly, quite apart from travel between constituency, Westminster, Brussels, Luxembourg, Strasbourg and other parts of Europe as well in the course of her duties. It would be totally unthinkable that such costs should not be borne from public funds.

It may well be, as we are the only country with individual constituencies, and also that other countries have already decided to provide their representatives with free travel from national funds, that it will be difficult for us to persuade our European partners that this should he an Assembly responsibility. But one way or another, these costs must be provided from public funds. I agree with the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that this really is an Assembly responsibility stemming from the agreement last year, and they really should be asked to face up very firmly to that responsibility.

I have a few questions that I should like to put to the Minister about these allowances. My first is rather similar to a point that I raised on pay: will a representative be able to recover expenses incurred between the date of election and the date the Assembly first met, 17th July? No clear answer was given in another place. I make no complaint about that: allowances and facilities, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, explained, came in rather late and so it is quite understandable that this and two or three other points which I should like to mention were not fully examined and fully answered in another place. It was said there that there would be provision for payments to be made retrospectively; but there was no specific answer on this point. And of course the provision for payments to be made retrospectively needs to cover the whole period between the election and the time the order or Assembly decision is made. I should be most grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, would be able to tell us about that.

Travel is not the only problem here. There is also the cost of mail during this period—that is, between the period between the election and last Tuesday. This problem of postal costs and whether perhaps franked envelopes—one suggestion that was made—for use within the United Kingdom could be provided were both raised in another place; but—and again no complaint about this—no specific answer was given, apart from an omnibus sentence from the honourable gentleman Mr. Brittan saying postage and certain other matters are for the Assembly. We are not able to leave it there, and again those queries relate to normal periods of time as well.

Again, the question of travel warrants for the spouse of a representative was raised in another place, but no answer was forthcoming about that. I would be grateful if the Government would let us know how things stand here. The need for this is, if anything, greater than for the Westminster Parliament, for the obvious reason that representatives will be much further from home. There might even be a case for children's warrants as well.

Clause 2 refers not only to allowances but to facilities as well. The Bill contains no insight into what facilities are in mind. In the debates in another place, some passing references were made by various honourable Members to the sort of items that ought to be included, but there was no authoritative view. Certainly I do not press for an exhaustive list at the moment and obviously it depends to some extent on what the Assembly itself comes up with, but it would be helpful to have some indication from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, as to whether, for instance, he expects these to include, say, office accommodation and equipment, photocopying, telephone and postal services, travel warrants, secretarial services, library and research facilities, and so on.

I have just two other points that I should like to mention. The Minister of State, Mr. Brittan, was asked in another place about consultations on the proposed order on allowances and facilities, if one becomes necessary. The question of consultations is obviously very important because we have no idea yet what will be in the order and we shall not know what might be in it until we hear what the Assembly is or is not going to do. Presumably if the Assembly does not get moving pretty fast, within a couple of months or so at the most, the Government will need to be ready with proposals soon after we reassemble in October, even if they are only interim ones, to fill the gap until the Assembly itself acts.

The problem about orders, as your Lordships will know, is that they cannot be amended; and that is one reason why consultations are important. The honourable gentleman Mr. Brittan did give some words of comfort and said that it would be right to give the other place the maximum information. He added that the Government would not bring forward such an order without engaging in some form of consultation. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, could confirm that consultation will include your Lordships' House—for one thing, some noble Lords are directly affected as representatives—and perhaps the Government may consider issuing a short consultative document before finally settling the terms of the order.

Finally, I wish to look rather further forward to the future—something which perhaps we do not do often enough—and to mention briefly the question of co-operation and consultation between the Westminster Parliament and United Kingdom representatives of the Assembly. This is not, nor should it be, dealt with in the Bill, nor is it dealt with in any other legislation; but it is given a passing glance every time these matters are debated pretty well. However, we are still no further forward than when this idea was first broached. It may be that we do not want any formal arrangements at all for keeping in touch with this country's Assembly representatives—in which case, let us decide to dispose of the matter. But if we do want some arrangements, in my submission, it really is time we set them up. I believe they would be useful.

One suggestion has been made for a joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament, on which representatives of the representatives of the Assembly could sit. Another has been for a sort of Grand Committee on which the 81 representatives could sit, together with some Members of the two Houses of Parliament also on it, although I must confess that the likely efficiency of this sort of body is not immediately apparent. One thing we cannot do is to ask just those with a dual mandate and those noble Lords who are Members of the Assembly to fulfil this role—it would be too much to expect of them. Nor can we leave it to some vague hope that they will keep us in touch in some undefined way. Faith is valuable, but the spiritual Members of your Lordships' House advise us that practical elements are necessary too.

No one is to blame for our own failure to decide about this so far, except perhaps all of us. There was something in the argument that we had to wait for the representatives themselves to be elected first; but now that the Assembly has been elected I submit that it is important to tackle this with some degree of urgency, because it will be all the harder to do it as time goes on and it could be harmful if our Members of the two bodies, Parliament and the Assembly, were to be allowed to drift apart. So, my Lords, let us look a bit further ahead, this time at least.

3.45 p.m.

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, no doubt there are Members of your Lordships' House whose perceptive quality is superior to mine and therefore perhaps they were able to follow the necessary—I use that term advisedly—but somewhat tortuous explanation furnished by my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham. Because of his speech which, as I have suggested, was somewhat complicated, at any rate to me, I would ask several questions of the Minister. No doubt they will be answered in due course and in the usual ministerial fashion.

It would be noted that despite the controversy which has been troubling some Members of your Lordships' House and of another place and which has been referred to in the public Press concerning the substantial sums that we are called upon to pay to the European Comumnity for services rendered and for existing and future benefits, whatever they may be, we are now being asked to accept a Bill which approves further payment. What 1 gather, despite the complicated statement to which we have just listened, is that there will be some payment made to the elected representatives—and I agree they have been elected quite democratically—for which the taxpayers of the United Kingdom will be responsible. I stand by the principle of representation being associated with taxation and if that principle is acceptable to your Lordships' House, and it has been acceptable to the United Kingdom for many centuries, then I think we ought to ask—at any rate I propose to ask—whether, because of the financial obligations which we are asked to accept, we should be able to obtain from these " representatives " (that was the term used both by the Minister and by my noble friend Lord Boston) some idea of what happens at the European Assembly in the new Parliament. I would also ask whether they represent not only the electors but also the taxpayers of the country. The taxpayers are entitled to ask questions and to expect an answer.

The second point is that the Minister almost made my heart bleed. There are some of these elected representatives who were expecting their emoluments, whether salary, expenses or both, but apparently the money did not arrive and they have suffered hardship. What a shame that that should happen! Of course there is always social security available, but perhaps that never occurred to them. It could of course be made available to them. They ought to be informed about the facilities available.

But there are other very desponding aspects of the situation. We are told about some of the elected representatives who have such vast territorial areas to deal with. One elected representative—I think that the noble Lord mentioned a lady—has a territory to cover which is almost as vast as Luxembourg itself. 1 wonder whether these elected representatives thought of these problems before they allowed themselves to be nominated. But why we should trouble ourselves about their difficulties, I cannot understand.

Only the other week we had some discussion—I took part in it, though, for some reason, very few other Members cared to take part in it—about our expenses. When I consider our expenses compared to the expenses that those elected representatives are to receive, not only from the European Assembly but from the national taxpayer in the United Kingdom—and it will increase our contribution to the European Community—I ask myself: Have we gone crazy about this matter? Or are we to understand that we are ready to " dish out " money to these representatives and to place further burdens on the taxpayers of this country, particularly at a time, as I read in the Press this morning—and I accept what they say; I dislike the policy of some of the Press people, but, for the time being, I read and accept what they say—when this country is now in a very precarious economic situation and the forecasts are by no means favourable? I read all that, yet here we are discussing a Bill, and concerning ourselves in a sympathetic, almost crying our eyes out, fashion, about a number of people who have been elected and are finding some difficulty about remuneration and expenses.

I now raise another question, and that is the duality that has been injected into this business; that it is possible for somebody to be elected to another place and to be elected to the European Assembly; and the assumption, despite the vast territorial area that has to be considered in the United Kingdom, is that they are able to occupy themselves with the European Assembly on the one hand, and with the territorial area of the United Kingdom on the other. That is a most interesting situation, and we ought to ask ourselves whether we should stop the whole thing at once and save ourselves a lot of money. I do not know whether these are reasonable questions, but they are the kind of questions that occur to any reasonable person, and I am satisfied that they occur to members of the public who, if they could follow carefully what we have heard this afternoon, would want to know what it is all about. Why are we troubling about these matters?

Finally, I ask this question. What we are asked to do is to approve a grant of money to certain persons. I should have thought that this was not at all a matter for the House of Lords, but a matter for another place. It is a Money Bill and I am surprised that it comes before us at all. But since it does come before us, we are entitled to ask questions, and we shall continue to ask questions about the activities of the people who have been elected. We shall also ask questions about the sums of money that have to be expended to satisfy these people, as regards both salaries and expenses. I hope that we shall get answers to those questions.