---

House of Lords: Financial Support for Members

My Lords, it is this side’s turn now. I agree with the basic sentiments put forward by my noble friend Lord McNally, reinforced by the extremely wise words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe—that we are being asked to endorse a practical way forward, which may result in a sensible outcome that takes account of the clear views expressed around the House today. The noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, who is not in her seat at the moment, talked about self-regulation. This is the biggest test that self-regulation in this House has yet had. If we can deal with the matter sensibly and properly under self-regulation, it will prove self-regulation. If we cannot, it will be the beginning of a long, slippery slope. One thing on which this House prides itself is its ability to scrutinise legislation and challenge the Government on what they do. Why should this be any different? Are we not capable of setting up a system that will effectively scrutinise the report? A slight side issue is that some of us are concerned that, by intervening as they have done, the Government are putting themselves in an awkward position. They may be being seen to fetter the ability of the House in its scrutiny function by putting forward clear recommendations that would involve a reduction in the resources put towards scrutiny. That may be the right thing to do in this case, but it is for us to make that decision. We have been asked to endorse the "architecture and principles". Like everybody else who has spoken, I do not understand what "architecture" means. I suspect that it is a weasel word. Perhaps it is the right time for a weasel word, to allow a process to go forward that will result in rather more sense than is in parts of the report. However, I understand "principles". Paragraph 2.19 of the report sets out five clear principles, three of which the report itself then breaches. The first is, ""to ensure that no Member of the House is prevented from attending and playing a full part in the activities of the House because of lack of financial resources"." I do not believe that what is being put forward will prevent most people in this House taking a full part, but it will affect some, particularly younger Peers—those with families—for whom being a Member of this House is their chosen career path. They will find it difficult to survive as full-time Peers under the new system. The third principle is, ""to maintain the geographical diversity of the House by ensuring that Members from throughout the United Kingdom can afford to attend"." Like many other Peers, I come rather a long way; I live four and a half hours from this House, door to door. To come here effectively takes up a full working day in the week. I do not complain about it; I knew what I was taking on. It is right that people from all parts of the country should be able to take part. I am not complaining personally; I have spent my life working for toffee and doing things that I wanted to do, and will continue doing that. If there were no allowances at all, I would hitch a lift down on a lorry, and bring my tent and pitch it on College Green. If the BBC booted me off, I would probably go and camp next to Mr Brian Haw. I would come anyway, but that is not the case for a lot of people who come from distant parts. At the moment the House is not sufficiently diverse, geographically. Let us look at the north of England. It is a relatively small number of us for whom what we do here relies on our experience of being in the north, but we come here to try to represent its broad interests. The proposals clearly discriminate against people from distant parts. The fifth principle is, ""to minimise the scope for abuse of allowances and for manipulation, by drawing up unambiguous rules for expenses claims"." Several speakers have mentioned that the rules put forward are far from clear; they are extremely complex. When we talk about the diversity of the House, we often talk about our origins. We talk about the fact that we have hereditaries still; that many peerages are given as honours or rewards for work done during a lifetime; that many are bestowed as a matter of distinction, and we benefit as a House by having people here who are extremely distinguished in many fields in this country; and that we have former MPs, some of whom clearly come here seeing it as a nice, cosy retirement and some of whom see it as a new job. However they have come here, Peers get older. At the moment we are here for life, and people become less active. Then there are the people under the strange designation of "working Peers", which includes all those other categories but with some of us specifically appointed on political lists as working Peers, which is what we try to be. Without the working Peers appointed on various political lists and as Ministers, the House would find it difficult to keep going. All those types of people contribute to the House, but none of the distinctions is particularly relevant to expenses. What matters in relation to expenses are people’s life circumstances—where they live, how old they are, what other personal resources such as pensions they have, and what sort of families they have. I agree with the point made that you cannot say, "If you pay those allowances, it is unfair because some people come in for just half an hour every day, get a tick and then go back to their home in London". It is too bad if that is what they do; the important thing is that the allowances allow the people who need them to come here and contribute. I fear that there is a real danger that the proposals, as they are at the moment, will result in a less diverse House. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, who is not in his place at the moment, talked about the quality of the report; I agreed entirely. If it had come to me as a local councillor on Pendle Borough Council, I would have been rude about it. I would have said that it was a pretty shoddy affair and sent it back to be reworked. I am advised that calling a report shoddy is probably not the right thing to do in your Lordships' House, so I shall say that I find it disappointing. A number of speakers have said that the report does not seem to be based on a clear and full understanding of the present position in the House—who the people are here and what we individually do. One thing that screams out to me from it is a series of assertions. The report says "We believe" in a number of places, which should be reserved for religions and not for reports of this nature. There is no financial appraisal in the report of how much this will cost, how much it will save or whether, as the report suggests, the cost will be broadly neutral. It states that it believes it will be broadly neutral but there is no evidence to point that out. It is clear from what Members around the House have been saying over the past week or two that a majority—possibly a large majority—will be paid less under the new system. That leads me to believe that the amount of money paid out in aggregate will be less. Neither I nor anyone else can prove that from what is in the report because the evidence is not there; the research necessary to find out has not been done. In these straitened financial times, this may be a contribution that the House wishes to make. However, if that is the case, we should take the decision overtly and clearly and we should not have it foisted on us in the form in which it is for other reasons. There is no financial appraisal of the increased costs of administration of the proposed new system. As I said, if this report came to my local authority we would not consider making a decision on it unless we had that financial information—indeed, any other self-respecting local authority would do the same—and I do not see why this House should do so. I hope the ad hoc committee will find it possible to look into this issue because if, as has been said, we do not want to increase the amount of money that we are being paid—and I agree with that—that is a fair argument to make; however, that is different from then saying, "Therefore you have got to have a big reduction". This issue needs to be faced up to in a reasonable way.