House of Lords: Allowances

Lord Tebbit Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, I, too, was a member of the ad hoc committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. It is worth remembering that we are talking, simultaneously at times, about four different systems: the current system; the system that the SSRB put forward; the system recommended by the ad hoc committee; and the system in today’s proposals. I should like to compare the ad hoc committee’s proposals with today’s proposals, as I think that we are missing some important points.

My noble friend Lord Tomlinson was exercised by the fact that the recommendation made by the ad hoc committee at paragraph 5.61 of its report moved outside the remit that the House gave us. It is important to recognise that the report makes that point fully and coherently at paragraph 5.56. The report goes on to recognise, as my noble friend Lord Tomlinson said, that since the general election things have changed. That is spelt out in paragraphs 5.58 and 5.59, which consider IPSA and possible changes to your Lordships’ House. There was no sleight of hand; this was clearly spelt out in the report. In paragraph 5.61, the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, recommended, with the support of most of the group, that,

“consideration might also be given to the case for putting in place a simplified allowance”.

The position is straightforward; I do not think that anything underhand went on.

The simplified allowance that we are looking at is a £300 a day flat-rate allowance. I remind your Lordships that the ad hoc committee report recommended that we accept the SSRB’s £200 flat rate. It also recommended, as an alternative—the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, referred to this a moment ago—a £100 flat-rate, unreceipted allowance, or £300 for those living outside London. Concern has been expressed about the House not being so diverse because of the difficulties of travel on that basis, but that applies equally to the alternative proposed by the SSRB. It could be argued that there was another alternative—the £140 receipted alternative. Indeed, we recognised that that was the SSRB’s alternative. However, that £140 receipted alternative was attenuated for every day that an individual did not attend the House, so that the individual not only lost for that day but faced an additional deduction from what they would have received. In essence, I do not think that many people would have received anything like £140, because everybody has to be away from the House at some point. I really do not see that the £300 flat rate is very different from what the ad hoc committee put forward, which was either to take the SSRB proposal with its deductions or to have the flat rate that we proposed. I do not think that that is an arguable point. It is written in our report, which I am sure all of your Lordships have read assiduously.

The question then is whether this is fair in the light of what London-based Members would receive. It may be argued that London-based Members will get more, but I have always found the argument that some people’s good fortune must mean other people’s misfortune difficult to agree with. The fact is that I am one of those who are not London-based Members and therefore, theoretically, I lose under this. I do not believe that I am losing any more than I would have lost under the report, but I accept that London-based Members will be receiving more.

That then raises the question of equity. Equity can be looked at in a huge variety of ways—equity according to need or the equity of getting the same rate for the job that you do. Both are arguable cases. The fact is that the proposals before us are the same rate for the job that you do.

On a personal level, one of the reasons why I want these proposals to go through is that I have seen many of my colleagues torn apart on Thursdays and Fridays by the ghastly telephone call that goes, “Hallo, it’s the Sunday Times here”. People know exactly what is coming—intrusive questions of a deplorable nature, people outside their house and their neighbours’ houses, questions down at their local pub. To me, this system is worth it because it means peace of mind for me and my colleagues. That is of enormous value to all of us.

Then there is the public interest argument. The fact is that this is a transparent system. What people receive is absolutely in line with their attendance in this House. There is no hidden agenda, there is nothing else for someone to look for and there are no constant questions about who you are living with and how that works. It is completely transparent. The public can have confidence in what is happening. The rate for the job is £300 a day—end of story. I hope that it will be our end of story too.

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy for the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris. My main point, however, is about the allowances as they affect staff who Members may employ.

Let me be clear. I do not think that this ought to be a full-time House. We should not be full-time politicians. Over the years since I have been in this House, I have tended to attend on 60 or 70 days a year. At times I think I have made some difference in what I have done while I have been here, for good or ill—opinions may differ about that. I do not think that we want to encourage people simply to come here every day. Frankly, there are too many of us now anyway; we would overfill the place.

As I look back, I find that for several years—because I take that view and I attend for only about half the days that the House is sitting; that is, when there are things that I think are important for which I should be here or things that interest me—the amounts that I have drawn in allowances have been less in total than I have paid my part-time secretary. It is a privilege to be here, and I have been prepared to accept that. What worries me now, however, is the loss of the provision to be able to claim secretarial allowance—or office allowance, whatever you call it—during the time when the House is in recess. I cannot tell my secretary that she is not going to get paid because the House is not sitting. I am not prepared to do that; it would not be right. There is a case to be made for looking again at how the new system will affect those of us who intend to attend only 60 or 70 days a year but whose activities in the House and as politicians generate enough work to cause us to retain a secretary to help. Whatever happens, and broadly speaking I support the proposals that my noble friend has put forward, we need to look again at that aspect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, this has been an interesting and lively debate in which many noble Lords have participated, and in which a considerable number of other Members have listened carefully to what has been said. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has already responded with his customary dexterity to those issues that fall within the remit of the House Committee, and I would not seek to add anything other than my full support to his response.

It falls to me to respond to noble Lords who raised issues about the proposed scheme and the provisions in the two resolutions on the Order Paper. I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, for her handsome tribute to me. The House needs to understand that none of this would have been possible without a certain amount of co-operation, understanding and agreement among the usual channels, the Convenor of the Cross Benches and my noble friend Lord Wakeham and his group. Nothing has been simple about this. It required a great deal of thought and hard work. Many reports were commissioned and it took a great deal of time to bring us to this moment. I am painfully aware that this scheme does not and will not suit everybody but in our combined judgment, it was the best we could possibly do to suit as many Peers as possible.

When the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said that we searched for a balance and got it about right, that is the right approach. It may be that we got it completely wrong and that there will be a deleterious effect on the attendance of the House. Of course, we will have to come back to review it if such difficulties arise. The Convenor of the Cross Benches was particularly concerned about that.

A number of issues were raised by my noble friend Lord Dholakia and others on a range of detailed issues. In the end, two speeches cast a substantially more cautious note about the direction in which we are going. The first was by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, and the second was by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. I understand where they are coming from although I had difficulties following entirely the thought processes of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, and what alternative he was suggesting. While he was speaking I read again the words in the Wakeham report. To me it is clear. Paragraph 5.57 states:

“Since the publication of the SSRB’S report, and the appointment of this group, two key developments have taken place which we believe should cause those tasked with putting forward a new scheme to consider whether an alternative approach to that set out in this report … should be put forward”.

Paragraph 5.58 states:

“The first development was the publication of IPSA’s proposals for the House of Commons on 29 March 2010”,

and the second was,

“the new government’s proposals to reform the House of Lords in time for the next General Election”.

That was the clear signpost by the Wakeham committee to examine alternative proposals. Indeed Recommendation 17 states:

“We recommend that consideration might also be given to the case for putting in place a simplified allowance”.

I know that the noble Lord does not agree with that and we could spend a great deal of time on the process, but let us deal with the substance. I am indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, for what she said. She almost took the words from my mouth but put it rather better and more elegantly than I would have done. Equity can be viewed in different ways, but the flat-rate scheme that we are proposing—that I am proposing—today treats all noble Lords in exactly the same way. We recognise that Peers have to travel from afar through the travel arrangements. Under the scheme, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will be able to claim, for a four-day week, £1,200 per week. I know that that is not for every week, because sometimes the House does not sit, but it is a substantial amount of money. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, described extremely well the differences between what was proposed by the SSRB and this proposal.

I have one unhappiness with what the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, said. That was his accusation that I had said that, broadly, this scheme would be cost-neutral and that he did not think that it would be. It is worth me explaining what I meant. The £300 is 11 per cent less than the current £335.50 maximum. It is 12 per cent less than the £340 maximum suggested by the SSRB. As my noble friend Lord Marlesford pointed out, it saves a considerable bureaucratic and administrative cost. My calculation was that if only 20 per cent of Peers claimed the £150 reduced fee, the scheme will cost no more than it currently does.

This time next year, we may or may not be in a position to make that judgment. Of course, it is still open to Peers to charge nothing at all. Extraordinarily—we should talk about this more—last year, 13 per cent of Peers attended the House of Lords, made their contribution and decided not to charge anything. They should be recognised for having done so.

It was about 40 years ago that the expenses scheme was brought in.

[Lord Tebbit]

I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but are his sums on the assumption of an unchanged number of Peers, or do they take into account the enormously increased number of Peers?

[Lord Strathclyde]

It is entirely typical of my noble friend to ask such an excellent question. My figures were, of course, on a like-for-like basis. He will recognise that phrase from his time in government.