| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Richard: My Lords, I support the Leader of the House in his moving of this Resolution. Perhaps I may start by thanking him for the kind words he said about me, and echo them in relation to the part that he has played in arriving at this conclusion. I have little to say about the terms of the Resolution itself. The provisions relating to safeguards, audits and that type of provision are clear, well set out and sensible.
It seems right to us that there should be provision for the support of opposition parties in this House as well as in the other place. It is right, too, that that support should be separate from the overall allocation of the Short money. This Resolution, having established that principle and set up that support, I am sure that, in accordance with well known precedent, will soon become known as Cranborne money. I shall forbear, out of my natural discretion, from commenting upon what I am sure is a pure coincidence of timing between the Government's acceptance of our much repeated plea for support for the opposition in this House and the approach of the general election which may provide a change of government.
Serendipity, which my dictionary defines as "discovery by happy accident", is a wondrous thing, and I am delighted to see it operate so effectively on the Government Benches this afternoon.
Perhaps I may make it clear that we support the Motion with the intention that it will last until the general election. As I think is well known, it is our
view that the whole question of the financing of political parties is an issue which will require full and detailed examination. If therefore we become a government, and if we proceed to such an examination, inevitably the issue of Cranborne money will be one of those issues which may well fall to be reconsidered.I am grateful to the Leader of the House for what he said about my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench. It was kind of him to say what he did and we appreciate it. I commend this Motion to the House as a modest but much needed recognition of the extraordinary amount of work that my colleagues do, almost all of which is at present unpaid. I commend the Motion to the House.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard. We welcome the constructive discussions that we have had with the Government on this matter and the terms of the Motion. It is right that such money should be ring-fenced as regards financial support for Opposition parties. Money is to be made directly available to this House and we do not have to rely on our colleagues in the House of Commons.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I consider that after the general election there will have to be a wider discussion of the financing of political parties. Subject to that, I welcome the Motion unreservedly.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, puts a time factor on his support for the Motion. Is it right or is it wrong? If something better can be introduced, why must we wait until election time? If there is such an improvement, why was it not taken into account when the decision was made?
As regards payment, continual changes to the system that we adopt are undesirable. Many of our traditions have been based upon the experience of undertaking parliamentary work. I should like to believe that this is not a temporary measure and I hope that the whole issue will not be turned upside down again "after the election", as the noble Lord mentioned.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in the debate. Far be it from me, a humble Back-Bencher, to contribute to a matter which has already been agreed by all Members of the Front-Benches and the usual channels. However, I took slight exception to one of the phrases which the noble Viscount the Leader of the House used in his introduction. He described this House as an amateur House, which implies that it is unpaid. I believe that it would be more correct to say that we are a very badly paid House.
It may be useful to speak for the record because there is a great deal of misunderstanding outside this House about remunerations or allowances for its Members. It is worth while pointing out that, apart from travelling, secretarial and overnight expenses, which might be considered to be legitimate expenses at a rate comparable to the other place, what we might describe as our pay--the
out-of-pocket allowances of just £30 a day--equates to between £4,000 and £5,000 a year. If that is considered to be the rate for the job for Members of this House, I believe that it is rather low and I am sure that that view will find a resonance around the Chamber. It is useful that the wider public should be aware of that fact and I hope that the Leader of the House will take the opportunity to correct the misapprehension to which he may have contributed in his opening remarks.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken, in particular to the two Front-Bench spokesmen and to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. He embodies the proper suspicion of any Back-Bencher of any Motion on which the Front-Benchers agree. I can assume only that his natural reluctance to spend public money activates what he has to say.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that I do not know who took the initiative, but I would be loath to claim that it was me--
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Viscount got the money!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, if the noble Lord took the initiative, which I seem to remember he did--although, as he rightly points out, I got the money--I can assume only that, in view of his enthusiasm, it is he who expects to be occupying this seat instead of me after the next general election. I shall not interfere in any way with what, under the unlikely circumstances of the party opposite winning the next election, will be a delightful argument as to the proper way to finance political parties. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. However, I say to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls that we must address the world as it is rather than as we would wish it to be, and I have attempted to do that in my response to noble Lords' representations.
As regards expenses, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that with the greatest respect I regard the word "amateur" as a compliment when addressed to your Lordships' House--
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I owe the House an interim report. In response to the inquiries of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I have made representations to the Senior Salaries Review Body. I hope that the beginning of a re-examination by Sir Michael Perry and his myrmidons will begin shortly.
I believe that the basis of our expenses is no more than a genuine attempt to meet the realistic expenses of your Lordships' House and not, as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, said, as a way of paying ourselves a small salary.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Travel Expenses: Lords' Spouses
3.46 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It provides for the spouses of Members of your Lordships' House to make two journeys per year in order to attend parliamentary occasions. This will be an extension of your Lordships' existing entitlement and the rules and procedures will be the same.
This facility was recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body in its report last July. The review body recognised that there are parliamentary occasions when your Lordships might expect to be accompanied by their spouses, and that it is therefore reasonable that they should be reimbursed for the cost of their journeys. The Motion before the House today does not seek to define for your Lordships what is a parliamentary occasion. Like a number of things I can think of, we would expect to recognise it when we see it!
We in this House who hold ministerial or other paid office are already reimbursed in this respect on the same basis as Members in another place, and so will not be eligible for this new provision.
I welcome the proposal before your Lordships today as a useful and justifiable improvement in arrangements and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That this House approves the following proposals--
(1) The facilities available to a Member of this House in respect of journeys made in connection with attendance at the House shall be made available in respect of journeys made by the spouse of a Member in connection with attendance at a Parliamentary occasion.
(2) A Member may not make claims under this Resolution in relation to more than two Parliamentary occasions in any year (beginning with 1st January).
(3) This Resolution does not apply in respect of journeys made by the spouse of a Member in whose case paragraph (4) of the Resolution of 25th July 1983 applies.--(Viscount Cranborne.)
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I welcome the new concession, small though it is, but wish to know what is meant by "a parliamentary occasion" and who determines it. Does it mean a specific event such as the opening of Parliament, or does it mean any day of a parliamentary sitting at which the Member is present?
Will the noble Viscount the Leader of the House explain paragraph (3), which states that the Resolution does not apply in respect of journeys made by the spouse of a Member and refers to a Resolution of 20th July 1983? Does that mean that certain Members can claim in excess of two visits? If they can, what is the business for which they can claim them?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page