Parliamentary Pensions Bill

Part of Orders of the Day — Supply – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 21 June 1978.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr David Walder Mr David Walder , Clitheroe 12:00, 21 June 1978

I shall comment briefly on the question of comparability, which has run through the debate as a sort of theme. It applies equally to pensions as to pay. Pay is founded on the initial absurdity that it is referred to the Review Body on Top Salaries. Top salary it certainly is not.

There is the myth that somewhere in the public service, or in various selected sections of the public service, it is possible to find an exact parallel to other positions, other duties and other tasks, and that at the end of it we shall find some magical sum that will be the right and proper one to to pay to a Member of Parliament. The whole concept is a complete myth.

We have heard in the past that we have the parallel with the under-secretary. We all know that Members of Parliament may carry out other occupations while an under-secretary may carry out only one occupation. I carry out one other occupation and no other, namely, writing books. However, the under-secretary cannot moonlight. He is not a true comparison.

When dealing with the pension scheme I find that we are striving in Clause 1 to get near to the mythical public servant with which we compare ourselves. However, we find ourselves in a curious situation. It seems that at 62 years we can retire advantageously. I believe that for the civil servant the equivalent age is 60 years. He receives certain benefits attributable to his years of service and we do not.