JUDGES' REMUNERATION ORDER 1972

HL Deb 04 July 1972 vol 332 cc1297-300

3.24 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE) rose to move, That the Draft Judges' Remuneration Order 1972, laid before the House on June 23, be approved. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the first of the two Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so I suggest that it might be for the convenience of the House if we discussed the two Motions together, since they are closely interrelated. The first Motion relates to the so-called Higher Judiciary and the second to the metropolitan magistrates. Other judges, for instance, the circuit Judges within my domain, may have their salaries increased and backdated without any Order or Resolution from Parliament. So, for that matter, can sheriffs-substitute in Scotland and county court judges in Northern Ireland. As regards the English lower judiciary other than the metropolitan magistrates, they have in practice for many years been closely related to the Civil Service pay and have in practice followed it. But the salaries we are now discussing cannot be backdated. They can be increased only from the date of the Order. That is why this apparent discrimination against them is taking place. Therefore it follows that the procedure in relation to the Higher Judiciary and the metropolitan magistrates with which I am now concerned is something of an anomaly, and it could even be something of an anachronism.

The need for the Orders—if I may explain for those of your Lordships who are curious for legal authentication—arises under the Judges' Remuneration Act 1965 and the Judicial Offices Salaries and Pensions Act 1957 respectively. I need not remind the House that this is another part of the Boyle Report on top salaries. We have already accepted, in February, their recommendations in relation to Parliamentary salaries and in relation to Ministerial salaries in, I think, April; and last Friday we implemented the Report so far as it affected Parliamentary pensions. Also, the Government have accepted the great range of salaries within the purview of this Report, such as those of chairmen and members of nationalised industry boards, senior civil servants and senior officers of the Armed Forces, which can be done without Order. They can be increased by administrative action and backdated. Only the salaries of High Court Judges and the magistrates cannot.

I am very anxious not to trespass on the time of the House, which devoted some time on Friday to discussing general issues in relation to Parliamentary pensions prior to the economic debate tomorrow, and I hope, therefore, that we may get through this Motion without my having to do so. The Boyle Report, as your Lordships will remember, relates to a datum line of July, 1969, when the last reviews of salaries of the Civil Service and chairmen of nationalised industries were made, although that review was implemented, as your Lordships will remember, in stages and was followed by the remuneration of the Judiciary. In my opinion, so far as regards the Judiciary with which alone I am concerned, there is an overwhelming case. The Report points out that since July, 1969, and before January, 1972, which is the terminal date, salaries have risen elsewhere by 29 per cent. and prices by 20 per cent. The average annual increase proposed by Boyle is only 6.8 per cent., with a range from 3.9 for the highest to 8.4 for the lowest. This is to compensate a price increase of 7.7 per cent. annually and salary increases in other quarters annually of 11.1 per cent.

I ought to say that magistrates, who are the subject of the second Order, have rather larger increases than the others in the first Order. I am glad of this because they have fallen below the relatively to other judges and legal earnings generally, with consequent difficulties of recruitment. The pattern of the Review Body's report is, however, to give higher percentage increases to those receiving lower pay generally. I hope relativity will be closely examined; that will be the next stage and it is purely fortuitous that I get this additional bonus in this particular Report. For the reasons that I have stated I do not propose to go into the whole merits of the Report or I should be trespassing on other debates. I think your Lordships will agree that upon the assumption which, for this purpose, I think I am entitled to make, that Boyle was right and that we were right to implement it, the judges cannot be left out simply because they require Parliamentary sanction. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the Draft Judges' Remuneration Order 1972, laid before the House on June 23 be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

3.30 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, top salaries are always one of the most contentious subjects—subjects, furthermore, which tend to arouse feelings which are not confined just to noble Lords on this side of the Chamber but, as one realises, having listened to the debate on pensions last Friday, are shared by noble Lords throughout the House. As someone who has had some responsibility in this area, I think that it is wholly wrong not to pay our public servants something which approximates—and it only just approximates—to what they could earn elsewhere in an economic system (and we shall be discussing this subject to-morrow) which is not as just as it might be.

I think I am right in saying that judges have had only three, or at the most four, increases since 1825. These vitally important figures, who provide us with a high calibre of justice of which we are proud, under the proposals now before your Lordships are still paid a good deal less than the deputy chairman of a large company—in fact a good deal less than the chairman of a small company. We need to consider these figures, as Boyle did, in arriving at the appropriate level. It is a difficulty that when we discuss these high salaries, and the fact that the chairman of a company with a capital of over £250 million is paid £43,000 a year, we always discuss remuneration in gross terms and not in net terms. When I was responsible for putting out proposals for increases in the remuneration of senior civil servants we considered what the real increase was. Previous Governments had been slow to make these increases and there was strong feeling about it throughout the Civil Service unions, and not just at the top level.

The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack may not have the figures of the net increases, and it may be helpful to consider those figures so that we can judge how large the increase is. It is striking that the Boyle Committee appear to have taken the lowest possible increase in terms of the comparability, except in regard to judges, who were largely overlooked in the past. At the same time—and I do not want to go far into the subject we are to debate tomorrow—it is unfortunate that the Government, while having a review body on top salaries, have not a general and explicit incomes policy throughout the community. I do not want to make much of this point, but it must be very striking to those who are struggling to retain their position in the wage explosion when they see such large increases given in the public sector. These are increases which follow a considerable reduction in income tax to the top salary earners.

It would be fatal to this country, whatever our politics, and particularly bearing in mind that there are those who hold that service to the State is perhaps the greatest service that can be rendered, if we do not pay, if not up to the levels of earnings that can be obtained elsewhere at least somewhere near them. None the less, the differentials in these payments will still fall far short of the differentials which are to be found between top officials and workers in the Soviet Union. Although I do not doubt that some noble Lords may feel that this is not the time to pay these increases and that the figures are excessive, we live in an imperfect world, and I believe that these increases are necessary.

On Question, Motion agreed to.