§ Lord Boyd-Carpenterasked the Leader of the House:
Bearing in mind the demands on Peers in Recesses, what steps he has taken following the recommendation by the Review Body on Top Salaries in April 1987 that further consideration should be given to the suggestion that an additional secretarial allowance be paid to Lords who are especially active in the House.
§ The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead)In April 1987 the Review Body on Top Salaries (TSRB) reported on the level of the allowance payable for Peers' secretarial costs and increased it from £20.00 to £22.00 for each day of attendance. The TSRB also recommended that the allowance should continue to be uprated annually from 1st August 1988 by the percentage increase in the maximum of the scale for a Senior Personal Secretary in the Civil Service in receipt of Inner London Weighting.
The TSRB had received some evidence to suggest that Back-Bench Peers who were particularly active in the work of the House should be able to claim against a higher maximum allowance. But they found that the problem of defining activity in the House and the possible injustice that would be caused outweighed the case for a higher allowance. Instead, the TSRB proposed that the Leader of the House should invite the House to consider the question further. The TSRB recommendations were debated on 23rd July 1987, and at col. 1531 my predecessor, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, declared himself willing to consider any workable scheme which might be proposed to him.
In the course of debate, and in subsequent correspondence, five schemes were proposed. One scheme suggested that Peers should be enabled to claim any excess costs over and above the provision of the present allowance without a maximum entitlement; two schemes provided for an annual payment of £5,000 a year; one scheme provided for allowances to be paid in Recesses at a level based on attendance record in the previous session or part session; and one scheme replaced the present allowance with a differential allowance based on attendance, division records and the level of correspondence which could be used to support a shared typing pool or private secretarial services.
Unfortunately these proposals either gave rise to problems of accountability or were administratively too complicated. Some also failed to accommodate the needs of Cross-Benchers, or failed to avoid 958WA invidious comparisons of levels of "activity". Nevertheless, I believe that a good case has been made for the provision of some additional allowance towards secretarial assistance in Recesses—in particular at the beginning and end of the period of adjournment of the House, when some members of the House can expect to be very much involved in parliamentary business.
I propose therefore some extension of our present arrangements so that henceforward Peers should be enabled to claim the existing daily secretarial allowance for up to a further eighteen days in any year—that is to say for a notional three days for any adjournment of one week and six days for any adjournment of two weeks or more. The additional allowance might be claimed by any Lord who certified that his expenditure on secretarial costs could not be met from the amounts already available for attending sittings of the House.
I propose to table today the resolution necessary to give effect to this proposal. I shall move it in the House on Monday 16th May. I propose also to invite the Leave of Absence and Lords' Expenses Committee to consider the details of the administration of the scheme.