Provisions Re-Enacted from Previous Act

Orders of the Day — Ministerial and Other Salaries Bill – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 18 January 1972.

Alert me about debates like this

Question proposed That this Schedule be the Third Schedule to the Bill.

Photo of Mr Arthur Lewis Mr Arthur Lewis , West Ham North

Because of my lack of understanding of parliamentary appreciation, I seek an explanation of the Schedule from the Minister. It says in line 30: A person to whom any salary is payable under section 1(1) of this Act shall be entitled to receive only one such salary, but if he is the holder of two or more offices in respect of which a salary is so payable and there is a difference between the salaries payable in respect of those offices, the office in respect of which a salary is payable to him shall be that in respect of which the highest salary is payable. Does this apply to the tax-free expense allowance of members of another place? They have a marvellous pension for life. In order to qualify for their £8.50 per day tax free, all they have to do is to show their nose in the Lords, say, "I am here" and then go to dine at the Savoy or the Ritz. Many people have put in applications for this job. A former Leader of the House is quoted in the Press today as having said that he would like to put his name down for it.

1.45 a.m.

The office holders with whom I am dealing are entitled to receive £8.50 a day in addition to their salary. I know that they cannot hold two or more offices, but, in addition to their £8.50 a day, they receive large directorship fees, have State board jobs, full time or part time, and pensions as ex-Members of the House. This can amount to a lot of money. Lord Robens was receiving £20,000 as Chairman of the National Coal Board. He has now ceased to be a Socialist—in fact, I did not know that he was one—and has become a director in several large business concerns from which he receives much more money than when he was Chairman of the Coal Board. If he "sucks up", to use the Army vernacular, to the Tory Government and they give him a job in the Government, will he still be able to draw his large pension from the Coal Board? That would be wrong, and I do not see why it should happen. Many members of the House of Lords who receive the £8.50 a day have never done a day's work, and they do not intend to do a day's work. If a teacher, civil servant or old age pensioner takes on another job, his pension is reduced pro tanto. I do not know what the new pension is for ex-Prime Ministers. It used to be £4,000 a year. I do not think it right that an ex-Prime Minister can become a lord and draw his pension and the salary for one of these jobs.

May I be assured that once someone has taken up an office the provisions about two salaries not being payable will apply to all forms of income, whether actual salary or the equivalent in the form of pension payments? It would be unfair if ex-Ministers, including ex-Prime Ministers, in effect receive two salaries while retired school teachers and others are precluded from taking State or local government employment without having their pension reduced pro tanto.

In our previous discussion about Ministerial pensions we were told that they were not pensions but deferred salaries. I hope that the Minister can tell us that those concerned will not receive two incomes, because that could have a deleterious effect upon the wages and prices policy the Government are now trying to impose on the people.

Photo of Mr David Howell Mr David Howell , Guildford

Paragraph 2 covers the question of duplicate salaries, and refers to Ministerial salaries. The provision in it is necessary to prevent a member of the Government receiving more than one salary payable under the Bill, but it allows him to receive the higher salary where he holds more than one Ministerial office. Ministers in the Lords do not receive the additional attendance allowance.

A Minister continuing to serve in a Ministerial post and receiving a Ministerial salary would not receive the pension to which earlier service in some other Ministerial office might have entitled him until such time as he retired from that post.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third Time.

1.56 a.m.

Photo of Mr Arthur Lewis Mr Arthur Lewis , West Ham North

Through a slip on my part I was unable to raise in Committee several points on Clause 1 and I should like to do so now.

Clause 1(2) reads as follows: (2) There shall be paid to the Lord Chancellor a salary (which shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom) at such rate as together with the salary payable to him as Speaker of the House of Lords will amount to £20,000 a year, but so that the salary payable to a Lord Chancellor under this subsection shall be abated by the amount of any pension payable to him in respect of any public office in the United Kingdom or elsewhere to which he had previously been appointed or elected. I have doubts on the last two or three words, and I should like an assurance that my good friend the noble Lord Lord Hailsham is not being unfairly treated. I agree that his salary should be abated by any pension payable to him in respect of any public office in the United Kingdom. It would be unfair if a former Prime Minister who became Lord Chancellor received in addition to his £20,000 a year his pension of £4,000. I understand from what the Minister has said that this would not be permitted. It would be equally unfair if the Lord Chancellor were to receive any other pension in respect of any other public office. I did not put down an Amendment on this because it might have been thought that I was trying to delay proceedings, and that is not my endeavour.

It is a pity that there is not a lawyer on the Front Bench to help us. I think probably the Leader of the House trained as a lawyer—

Photo of Mr Arthur Lewis Mr Arthur Lewis , West Ham North

I apologise. I would not knowingly have insulted the right hon. Gentleman. I withdraw my remark and ask him to forgive me. Nevertheless, someone must speak for the lawyers. A Lord Chancellor may previously have been appointed chairman of the I.C.I. and be getting an I.C.I. pension.

Photo of Mr William Whitelaw Mr William Whitelaw , Penrith and The Border

The Bill refers to … any public office in the United Kingdom or elsewhere …".

Photo of Mr Arthur Lewis Mr Arthur Lewis , West Ham North

Yes, it refers to "any public office". That leads me to my next point. Suppose a man has worked most of his life as a town clerk or a solicitor with a local authority and then decides to go on pension. He enters the House, goes to the other place eventually, and becomes Lord Chancellor. As I understand it, he would have to relinquish his pension because he was previously in an appointed position. That is not fair because he may have paid in for that pension. The Bill says: … to which he had been appointed or elected. A man could have been elected to a public position in the United Kingdom from which there is a payment or pension due. The Bill speaks of "any public office." A governor of one of the islands might retire and enter Parliament and eventually become Lord Chancellor. He would be precluded from receiving his pension.

Suppose the Leader of the House had been a town clerk for 30 years before becoming an M.P. I believe I am right in saying that he would be entitled to receive his pension in addition to his parliamentary salary. If he received an Army pension he would be able to continue drawing that while receiving his parliamentary salary. But the Lord Chancellor could not. Every other Minister, from the Prime Minister downwards, could draw whatever pensions they were entitled to, except the Lord Chancellor.

Let us take the case of the present Solicitor-General, whom we all know to be an extremely able and hard-working man. Let us assume that, before coming to this House, he held an appointment as a town clerk. Let us assume, further, that he gets his pension and becomes Solicitor-General. I think that he could still get his pension, in addition to his salary as Solicitor-General. However, if subsequently he became Lord Chancellor, he would be told to drop his pension because he would be covered by this Measure which provides that, as he had, in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, a job to which he was appointed or elected previously, he must give up that pension. I do not think that that is fair. I hope to hear from another place that I am right, and who better than the present Lord Chancellor to give us a legal opinion on it and, if it is wrong, to put the matter right?

I turn next to subsection (4). I cannot accept that this is right. If the Bill is not amended, we shall have a situation in future where we shall be denied the opportunity of an interesting debate like the present one. Any alterations in the future will be done by Orders in Council. The Leader of the House told us earlier that we could have another Committee like Lord Boyle's and a report from it, but that would mean that any alterations could be made without any Bill coming before the House. We should have no chance of making Amendments, and I should not, be able to make the valuable points that I have made about the present Bill. I should not be able to point out how unfairly the Government have treated some of their Ministers. I should not be able to defend the legal profession. I should not be able to say that the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General should have larger increases. All that I could do is vote for or against the Government's proposals. I should not be able to amend them.

That cannot be right. I think that I have proved that the Government have slipped up in this Bill. It may be that some of the Law Officers of the Crown will find that they are not getting enough in comparison and that they want increases. In such a case, the Government may make other proposals, which again I shall have no chance to amend.

I cannot agree that we should allow subsection (4) to go through as it stands without at least the opportunity to say that it goes through without my support. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), I believe that we are entitled to debate and vote upon proposals of this kind. My hon. Friend also said that he hoped that I would pack up early, since I should not be precluded in the future. But I shall be precluded. The Bill now goes forward on Third Reading, and no hon. Member will have an opportunity to put down Amendments to future Ministerial and Other Salaries Bills because there will be no such Bills in the future. There will be Orders in Council. We shall either accept or reject them, and that will be that.

I come to the Schedules. I am not now able to put forward any suggestions for Amendment because, on Third Reading, I can discuss only what is in the Bill. Looking at Part IV, which I have not so far mentioned, I cannot for the life of me understand why the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms should get £6,500 a year. Why should a non-elected person not responsible to the electorate get £6,500 a year? I cannot accept that.

Parliamentary Secretaries other than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury are to get £5,500. I cannot accept that.

The Captain of the Queen's Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard is to get £5,000. He has a lovely, flowery title. He may be entitled to the money because of his flowery title. Again, I cannot accept that.

Lord in Waiting, £5,000. The Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household, the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household, the Junior Lord of the Treasury and the Assistant Whip, House of Commons, are to get £4,000. Earlier I complained about what I termed the inadequacy of the salaries of some Ministers. I cannot agree that it is right that those whom I have just mentioned, from the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household to the Junior Lord of the Treasury, should get £4,000 a year, which is the same salary as an Assistant Whip in the House of Commons. I am glad that the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip is here.

Photo of Mr William Whitelaw Mr William Whitelaw , Penrith and The Border

So is the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household.

Photo of Mr Arthur Lewis Mr Arthur Lewis , West Ham North

I am not so sure that he is always here.

Then we come to a whole list of salaries in Schedule 2. I have something to say here, because one does not often get a chance to discuss anything to do with the House of Lords, which is rather a pity. In the House of Lords we have the Leader of the Opposition at £3,500 a year and the Chief Opposition Whip at £2,500. Again, these are non-elected persons who are not responsible to the electorate. I am not sure that the salaries paid there are reasonable for the work that they do in the House of Lords. Therefore, I cannot agree to the salaries stated there.

I turn now to the provision against duplicate salaries in Schedule 3; A person to whom any salary is payable … shall be entitled to receive only one such salary. I hope that we can get clear whether this applies to what I term the ancillary types of jobs which go in the Lords. Some of their Lordships get part-time jobs on some of the boards. I think that I am right in saying that they would not, therefore, be entitled to claim or maintain those salaries. Now they have to choose one or the other, but only one salary.

The Schedule reads, if he is the holder of two or more offices". It could apply to other offices. It does not state precisely whether it is an office of profit under the Crown, such as a Minister, or an office of profit under the Crown in one of various other jobs. We could have an anachronism here. A person holding an office of profit at, say, £20,000 a year could take a job as a Minister at £3,500 a year in the Lords or in the Commons and say: "I will take the higher salary. I can then get round the Government's policy by maintaining my other higher salary for the higher-paid job and take on the lower-paid job as junior Minister", or whatever it may be. I do not think that is intended, but as I read it that could happen.

Therefore, for the reasons that I have mentioned I cannot agree to give an unopposed Third Reading to the Bill.

2.15 a.m.

Photo of Mr William Whitelaw Mr William Whitelaw , Penrith and The Border

I shall seek to answer the points which the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has raised.

The first case the hon. Member has raised is under Clause 1(2) regarding the position of the Lord Chancellor, and in particular the words of the subsection a salary … shall be abated by the amount of any pension payable to him in respect of any public office in the United Kingdom or elsewhere to which he had previously been appointed or elected. The reason for this particular provision in the case of the Lord Chancellor is that he is in an exceptional position in that he is not only a Minister but he is head of the judiciary. His salary is therefore paid in the same way as judges' salaries are paid. Therefore, this particular subsection repeats the provision in Section 4 of the Judges' Remuneration Act, 1965, which is applicable to judges generally. It is because the Lord Chancellor is treated as head of the judiciary, and therefore on the same basis as one of the judges, that his salary has the same provision attached to it as is attached to the salaries of judges. That is the reason for that particular provision concerning the Lord Chancellor.

Photo of Mr Arthur Lewis Mr Arthur Lewis , West Ham North

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a judge who was an Army officer, or even the present Lord Chancellor—who, I think, is an ex-Army officer—and received a pension would have to forgo that? Do they have to forgo it? As it is set out in the Bill, they would have to do that, and that is unfair.

Photo of Mr William Whitelaw Mr William Whitelaw , Penrith and The Border

The provision in the Judges' Remuneration Act is directed to their particular positions, for example, as the recorder of a particular town, I understand. As to the hon. Gentleman's particular point about pensions, I shall be pleased to look into that and write to the hon. Gentleman. But that is the reason why the provision is in the Bill as it stands.

Then the hon. Gentleman comes to Schedule 1, Part IV. He asks, for example, why the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms should be paid £6,500 a year. He will appreciate that this is the title given to the Government Chief Whip in the House of Lords. He is therefore paid as the Government Chief Whip in the House of Lords. Similarly, the Captain of the Queen's Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard is the Deputy Chief Whip in the House of Lords. As for the Lords in Waiting, they are the Government Whips in the House of Lords and also speak in the House of Lords in answer to various debates.

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is under a misconception about the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household and the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household, both of whom are Government Whips in the House of Commons and, therefore, are elected. The hon. Gentleman thought that they were not elected. My hon. Friends concerned are Members of this House and are Government Whips. These are the titles that are given to them.

The hon. Gentleman does not agree that in future Ministerial salaries should be dealt with by Order in Council rather than by a Bill. But I believe it is the general view of the House that this is the right way of doing it for the future. I think that it is a reasonable provision. I accept that I shall not carry the hon. Gentleman with me in that, but I hold to my view that it is a reasonable provision.

As to the duplicate salary to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I think that my hon. Friend has already explained that position to him. If there is anything further that the hon. Gentleman wishes, beyond what my hon. Friend has said, and if the point is put to me, I should be only too pleased to seek to answer it.

We have had a long debate on the Bill. As has been said, the hon. Member for West Ham, North has exercised his undoubted right in probing in great detail the Bill's various provisions. I believe that the Bill is right. I hope that the House will accept it, and I therefore hope that it will be given a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.