CLAUSE I.—(Increase in salaries of certain Ministers.) (Hansard, 3 June 1946)

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)
I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out paragraph (b).
The Amendment which stands in my name and that of a number of other hon. Members was really inspired by no less a person than the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will, in support of that assertion, refresh the memory of the Committee on the question. On the Second Reading of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman, with characteristic helpfulness, was good enough to say this in reply to certain observations which I had ventured to offer on the Second Reading: Perhaps it would be convenient if at this stage I told the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames that the questions he raised on the salaries of the Postmaster-General and the Minister of Pensions are quite appropriate Committee points. I will not say more now, except to add that when the Committee stage 1741 is reached, I shall be very happy to reply to the hon. Member's arguments, if he will put down an Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1946, Vol. 423, c. 1314.] Being always willing to assist the Government in any matter, I followed the invitation to put down this Amendment which, as the Committee will appreciate, has the effect of excising from the benefits of this Measure the Minister of Pensions, and would respectfully invite attention to the fact that the following Amendment on the Order Paper deals with the Parliamentary Secretary to the same Department. I would, if I have your permission, Major Milner, desire, in the interests of saving time, to discuss both Amendments together inasmuch as the points raised on them are precisely the same. The purpose of this Amendment and the subsequent Amendment, is to remove from this Bill the provision to increase the salaries of the Minister and of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions. The reason for doing this is quite simple. It is not sought to suggest that these appointments are not of first class importance, but what it is desired to do is to urge that this moment is, to use the Prime Minister's own expression, extremely inappropriate for the raising of these salaries. It would verge upon platitude to remind the Committee that there is the gravest discontent with the working of this Department, and I do not believe that hon. Members opposite, if they search not only their consciences, but their postbags, will find any reason to disagree with that. I, therefore, suggest to the Committee that the very moment at which there is the deepest and, I would suggest, the most justifiable discontent with the working—

§ The Chairman
I am sorry, but the hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the administration of the Ministry of Pensions on this Amendment. The only question is whether the Minister shall have the increase or not.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
I fully appreciate that, and, if I have failed to put my point with sufficient clarity, I must ask for your forgiveness. The point which I was venturing to put to the Committee was that at the very moment when there is immense discontent with the working of this Department—

§ The Chairman
That is precisely the point with which the hon. Gentleman is 1742 not entitled to deal on this Amendment. What he is suggesting is that there is discontent with the administration of the Minister of Pensions. This particular provision in the Bill refers not only to this Minister but to any Minister of Pensions, and has no relation to the present administration of the Department, which is a matter to be discussed in Committee of Supply and not in Committee on this Bill.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
I entirely and respectfully agree with your Ruling, Major Milner, but if you would permit me to put to you the basis of my argument, I think you would come to the conclusion that it does come within the terms of this Amendment. The point that I am seeking to make is that there is immense discontent with the working of this Department and that, therefore, this is an inappropriate moment for raising the salary of the Minister. My argument is addressed solely to the point as to whether this is the right moment to grant this substantial increase in the pay of the Minister. Surely, I am entitled, in arguing that, to argue that this is the inappropriate moment, because of the grave public disquiet at the working of the Department.

§ The Chairman
No, I do not think so. The hon. Member is quite clearly endeavouring to discuss the administration of the Department, about which he says there is discontent. That is not in Order on the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
I naturally bow to your Ruling, Major Milner, but may I put my point to you, perhaps, in another way?

§ Mr. John Paton (Norwich)
On a point of Order. May I ask if the statements which are being made by the hon. Gentleman ought to be permitted, in view of your Ruling, Major Milner, which would forbid any Member on this side of the Committee from refuting the charges he is making against a Department of the Government?

§ The Chairman
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am not in a position to call an hon. Member to Order until he has said something which necessitates that action. But, having called him "o Order, he should not pursue the point, either directly or indirectly.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
Perhaps I may say this. There are, as I see it, two possible lines of argument against increasing the salary of the head of a particular Department. One would be that the importance of that Department was so small that no increase in salary was warranted. That would be permanent. It is also possible to argue that although that is an important Department, whose head is fully entitled, in principle, to an increase in salary, yet this is not the appropriate moment in which to do it. If that argument is permissible—as, in my respectful submission it is—it is, surely, permissible to submit arguments in support of the view that this is the inappropriate moment for an increase. I apologise for my own failure to put the point effectively. The argument I am attempting to submit to the Committee is precisely that.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member is not, in my view, entitled to argue, as I understand he is doing, that this is not the appropriate moment to increase the salary because of the present administration, good or bad, of that Department. If I am right in that conjecture, then the hon. Member is seeking to discuss the administration of the Department, and in doing that he is out of Order. In my view, his first line of argument is the only one on which he might properly speak against this proposal.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
I am very grateful to you for your assistance, Major Milner. May I put to you the point I was attempting to put? I understood that you were of the view that it was in Order to argue that this was an inappropriate moment to raise the salary. That being so, while I fully appreciate I may not argue that the Department is incompetently administered, I submit that I am permitted to argue that there is a public opinion to that effect, and that that public opinion—

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member has repeated the same argument two or three times, and I cannot permit him to repeat it again. If the hon. Member still desires to move the Amendment I must ask him to deal with it on some other ground than the one on which he is endeavouring to argue at present. Otherwise I must ask him to resume his seat.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
With great respect, I do not think I have had an oppor- 1744 tunity of putting the point I desired to put to you, Major Milner. I am speaking with due submission to your Ruling that I may not discuss the administration of the Department. I submit I am entitled to say that owing to the—

§ The Chairman
rose—

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
Perhaps you will allow me to finish the sentence, Major Milner. I believe that owing to the public feeling that exists on this matter, public opinion would be adversely affected by an increase at this time. I respectfully submit that that is a proper argument on this Bill, and on this Amendment. I must apologise if I have failed to submit the point with proper clarity, but that was the point I was seeking to put. There are, as we know—and this is no party point; hon. Members opposite have had precisely the same experience as hon. Members on this side of the Committee—hundreds of thousands of ex-Servicemen who have strong feelings on this subject—

§ Mr. Hubbard (Kirkcaldy)
On a point of Order. Is not the hon. Member again discussing the administration of the Department?

§ The Chairman
I have already ruled the hon. Member out of Order in discussing that point.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
I fully appreciate that I am not entitled to say whether that feeling is justified or not. My submission on this point—and it is the only one that is necessary—is that it exists. That being so, those people who have the feeling, rightly or wrongly, that they have been unfairly treated by this Department—

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member is again out of Order. He is now putting forward the suggestion that the administration of this Department results in unfair treatment. That is clearly a matter of administration, and not a matter which can be argued on this Amendment. I must ask the hon. Member not to persist further, either directly or indirectly, on that line of argument.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
Surely, I am entitled to argue that that feeling exists.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Gentleman has on several occasions repeated that 1745 expression. He not only indulges in repetition, but he goes further, and gives reasons why, he says, the feeling exists, saying it is because of alleged unfair treatment. That is, as I have said, a question of administration, and the whole of that argument is out of Order. I must request him not to repeat the argument, directly or indirectly, or I must ask him to resume his seat.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
I appreciate that I am not entitled to say whether those feelings are justified or not. That is subject to your Ruling, Major Milner, to which, of course, I bow. But my only argument on this Amendment is that to increase the remuneration of the responsible political head of this Department at this particular moment would—I am convinced that I have hon. Members opposite with me—give rise to strong feeling. [HON. MEMBERS: " No."] I will leave it to hon. Members and their constituents. I know what my own constituents feel about the matter, and I am certain that if hon. Members opposite will search their postbags they will find some confirmation of that view. I shall be happy if hon. Members opposite find it easy to deal with their constituents on the matter. The point I submit in moving the Amendment is that this is an inappropriate moment for raising the salary of the political head of this Department.

§ Colonel Gomme-Duncan (Perth and Kinross, Perth)
I beg to second the Amendment.
I also wish to refer to the next Amendment on the Order Paper, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has suggested, has reference to the same subject. I am usually brief in what I say, and from what you have ruled tonight. Major Milner, I have, obviously, to be briefer than I had hoped to be, as everything is ruled out of Order that I was about to say. I should like to emphasise that there is no question of personal animosity against the Ministers concerned. We have had a great deal of help from the Minister of Pensions, and the Parliamentary Secretary, but the question of whether their salaries should be increased at this time is causing considerable anxiety. I shall not go into the reasons for it. Many ex-Servicemen have expressed them, and I have my own views on the subject, and so have other hon. Members. I hope that when the Chan- 1746 cellor of the Exchequer comes to reply, if he is to reply, he will not consider the argument "Tiresome "—I think that was his expression. I hope he will not think we are being tiresome on purpose, but that there is something to it. Most of what I wanted to say about the pensioners being out of Order, I will conclude by quoting the words of Kipling: Look what 'e's seen, Look where 'e's been; Look at 'is pension— And Gawd save the Queen.

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton)
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) have questioned whether this is the opportune moment to make this increase statutory. Technically speaking, their Amendment is quite futile, because even if the Amendment were carried it would remain possible under the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916, for the Treasury to determine the salary both of the Minister and of the Parliamentary Secretary.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
rose—

§ Mr. Dalton
No, I am not going to give way. I am expounding the law. The hon. Gentleman has taken a good deal of time, and has been stopped by the Chair several times. If he will listen to me I will expound to him an elementary point of the law. It has apparently eluded the notice of the hon. Gentleman that under the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916, the salaries of these two officers may be deter mined by the Treasury, and that therefore it would be possible for this Amendment to be carried and for me tomorrow morning to enact that—

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
rose—

§ Mr. Dalton
The hon. Member has been in the Army and, in the words of the sergeant-major, he must " wait for it."It would be quite possible for me tomorrow morning to enact that the Minister should be paid £5,000 a year and the Parliamentary Secretary £3,000. Therefore, the Amendment is totally futile. The provision we have placed in the Bill is designed to secure the agreement of the Committee —on a Division if need be. We are prepared to go to a Division, but in our view it is reasonable that Parliament should determine that the Minister of Pensions should be paid not less than the interme- 1747 diate grade between those Ministers of Cabinet rank who receive £5,000 a year and those who receive lesser sums, and that he should be lifted to the £3,000 level which is already paid to the Minister of State, to the Postmaster-General—whom we propose to lift to the higher £5,000 level—and which it is proposed also should be paid to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions should be paid not less than Parliamentary Secretaries attached to other Departments.
We place this before the House of Commons as a reasonable proposition. The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is, as I have said, futile because, even it it were to be carried, the power would still remain with us to determine what the salary should be. [Interruption.] We have the majority even at this late hour of the day. Further than this, I say that, on a broad and sensible view of the question, the Minister of Pensions is sufficiently important to be remunerated no less highly than the Minister of State or the Chancellor of the Ducky of Lancaster. This office has great responsibilities and, let me add—I have noticed with very great attention the rulings you have given, Major Milner, and therefore I will restrict myself to very few words in saying this—the Minister of Pensions has been responsible for very important work. His administration can be challenged, as you have indicated, on a Supply Day when the Opposition can find the time and demand the subject.
The Ministry of Pensions is a Department of very great importance which— and I restrict myself here to the fewest possible words—under this Government has been responsible for improving the lot of many ex-Servicemen beyond anything that has been done by their predecessors, which is in itself sufficient justification for this proposal. Therefore, I ask the Committee to say that it is very reasonable, very appropriate, and very apt at this time that the salary of the Minister of Pensions should be raised to the same level as that of the Minister of State and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and that of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions—an able young man recently recruited from the Chief Whip's office—should be remunerated no 1748 less reasonably than the general body of Parliamentary Secretaries. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will reject the Amendment that has been moved from the other side.

§ Captain Crookshank (Gainsborough)
May I ask the Chancellor to illustrate the point he has made? I am sure he is fortified with a very good brief, but I cannot understand his statement that he could change the Minister's salary at his own will tomorrow if he wished, because the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937, which is the one with which we are dealing—

§ Mr. Dalton
The Parliamentary Secretary.

§ Captain Crookshank
No; the right hon. Gentleman said the salary of the Minister of Pensions could be raised to £5,000 a year. I thought that was the confirmation of what he first said. I understood him to say that he could do it tomorrow, if he wanted to, irrespective of Parliament. I just cannot understand it.

§ Mr. Dalton
I said "The Parliamentary Secretary." [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] There is nothing to withdraw. There is only a need for explanation, which I am always only too ready to give. I was referring to the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916, under which the salary of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions is left to be determined by the Treasury. If I did not succeed in making that clear in the first instance I make it clear now.

§ Captain Crookshank
I am very much obliged to the Chancellor, but that has really no connection with what he said. I am within the recollection of the Committee and all who are here in saying that he stated that he could raise the salary of the Minister to £5,000. I am very glad that his second thought has made the point clear. If the right hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity of saying something, I will look at the Bill again and see whether he is right on the second point.

§ Mr. Boyd - Carpenter
Perhaps the Chancellor will make another thing clear. He told the Committee that if the Amendment were carried he himself could raise the salary of this Minister tomorrow.

§ Mr. Dalton
The Parliamentary Secretary.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Amendment was futile because he could do it under his own powers. I would ask him whether he is seriously suggesting that he or any other Minister of the Crown, in face of the express wish of a Committee of the House of Commons by an Amendment of this nature, would act in complete defiance of that wish by an administrative process? If so, that is a new doctrine, even for the present Government.

§ Captain Crookshank
I want to ask a question which I hesitated to ask when the Chancellor made a mistake last time, lest he should make another mistake. I am rather intrigued by the drafting of the Clause. I wonder whether it does what it is intended, or purports, to do. It says, in the first line: The maximum amount of the annual salary payable under the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937, and so on. The form of the Act which it, presumably, amends is quite different. What the Act of 1937 lays down, in Section 1, is: The annual salaries payable. Then it gives groups of Ministers (a), (b) and (c). Under (c) you have to refer to the First Schedule, under Part III of which we find what is the salary of the Minister of Pensions. That is the layout of the Act we are amending. I wonder, as a matter of drafting, whether the form of the Clause is effective. I should have thought that if we amended Part III of the First Schedule of the Act it should be in those terms. The reference in the Clause should be much more detailed and not just a general reference to the Bill as a whole. I do not know whether any of the Law Officers are here. I presume they are not, at this late hour. I want to be certain about what we are doing. I am not expressing any disagreement but only asking whether this Clause is aptly worded for the purpose.

§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall)
I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that this is 1750 an excellent way of doing it. It is easier and simpler than the method which he is suggesting. If instead of doing it in the way we have, by absolute reference and by stating the amount, we had followed the method adopted in the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937, it would have led to unnecessary complexity. The method adopted is more simple and straightforward, and does achieve the purpose.

§ Captain Crookshank
I am glad to hear it achieves that purpose. Why are the Government not repealing the words in this Act? If we pass this Bill and make it an Act there will be two Acts on the Statute Book, one saying the annual salary shall be payable as stated in the first Act and the other that the amount payable shall be £3,000. How is the poor Chancellor to know which sum ought to be paid? Surely if we are dealing with parts of the Act we ought to say so in amending legislation. It seems to be a novel form of drafting and it cannot come into the general category of " streamlined."

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
Surely that point has no substance whatever. We do in this Bill refer to previous Acts, which are, by Clause 1, being amended. We say: The maximum amount of the annual salary payable under the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937, shall be increased, and we say what the increased amount shall be. It is perfectly straightforward. I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must have his tongue in his cheek.

§ Captain Crookshank
This is a most uncalled-for remark and I ask whether the Minister should not withdraw it. This is a perfectly serious case. I have not seen this form of drafting before. An amending Bill states what it is amending and if the hon. Gentleman looks at the Act of 1937 he will see there are four pages of these little amendments of previous enactments. If he tells me that the Law Officers are satisfied, I have no more to say. But I think it a noteworthy occasion in the history of Parliament that we have changed the system of drafting on in important Bill.