HC Deb 19 November 1953 vol 520 cc1922-5

4.6 p.m.

Mr. F. Beswick (Uxbridge)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, at the end, to insert: (3) The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation shall, as soon as possible lay before each House of Parliament a statement of such provision for the payment of pensions to or in respect of members of each of the air corporations as he with the approval of the Treasury has determined. On the Second Reading I gave some indication of the attitude of my hon. Friends and myself to the Bill and to the provision which will enable the Minister to pay pensions to members of the Boards. We recognised that there were some controversial elements in the case for pensions, and the Minister himself recognised some of them. There are instances, some of which I mentioned, on which it would seem unfair to withhold the possibility of paying a pension. Therefore we do not propose to contest the Clause. However, the Minister claimed that the Clause was broadly the same as the provision in other nationalisation Acts. It is, broadly speaking, the same, but I should like to read the relevant provision from the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946. Section 2 (6) says: There shall be paid to the members of the Board such salaries and allowances as may be determined by the Minister with the approval of the Treasury, and, on the retirement or death of any of them as to whom it may be so determined to make such provision, such pensions and gratuities to them or to others by reference to their service as may be so determined. The fact is, as the Minister admitted, that previous Governments have not hitherto paid pensions to this category of Board members of publicly-owned industries. When the provision was drafted, it was not the intention that definite pension provision should be offered to potential members of the Board. The idea was more that a pension should be a reward for services rendered rather than an inducement for services to be provided. We thought that the Minister ought to be free to offer pensions or gratuities in appropriate cases. Perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can tell me whether the fact that the wording of the Clause is now slightly altered indicates a different approach on the part of the present Minister.

There is another point to which I wish to call attention. When I asked if it was proposed to pay pensions in addition to the present salary, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary replied,"Certainly." He gave the impression that this additional reward was regarded as being of comparatively little monetary significance. Of course, that is not the case. Salaries in the past have been attacked, very often by Conservative Members, as being too high, and they have always been justified on the basis that the posts were not permanent and were not pensionable. Conversely, for example, the Permanent Secretaries of the Departments which may have some responsibility for these industries were said to enjoy comparable remuneration because, although the salary was smaller, possibly only half that paid to the Chairmen of the Boards, they had pension rights and security, which balanced the smaller salary.

Now, apparently, we are about to make some changes in these arrangements. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he agrees or the Government agree that it is proper to consider a situation in which the permanent head of a Government Department, responsible for a particular industry, should get £4,500 a year and a pension, while the head of the industry is paid £5,000, £6,000 or £7,000, or, as apparently we are now proposing to pay the head of the new public body to be set up to control atomic energy in this country, £8,500 a year, and also a pension. What does the Parliamentary Secretary have to say about that? I make no comment, of course, upon the fact that the Minister constitutionally responsible not only for the Permanent Secretary but also for the members of the Board gets a salary less than either, with, of course, no pension and no security at all.

It does seem that we are getting this whole business somewhat out of perspective. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he has considered this aspect of the matter, and whether the Government, having decided to make special provisions for pensions in addition to the high salaries, are quite certain that it is not reasonable to have another look at this business. In any case, whether it is agreed that the order of priorities is right or wrong, we think that the House should at any rate know what the position is; the House should know what arrangements are made.

It is agreed, of course, already that the details of the salaries and allowances should be made known to the House and that the House should be in possession of all that information. We are asking in this Amendment that any addition to the other provisions regarding salaries and allowances should also be made known to the House before the Minister or when the Minister reaches a decision about them. I hope, therefore, that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will recognise that we are endeavouring to assert the principle of Parliamentary accountability in this Amendment, and that he will be able to accept it.

4.15 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo)

I think that it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervene at this stage to say that, so far as I can see at first sight, as this Amendment only came into my hands this morning, there would be no objection to our accepting the spirit of the Amendment. I hope that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) will understand if I reserve the right at this stage to say that we may require to change the wording of the Amendment when it reaches another place, because it may be that we should prefer to draft it in a different manner.

I can accept the principle of the Amendment, and I do so very gladly. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the thought which he has given to this matter, as he always does to everything to do with civil aviation. I am sure that he will not expect me at this stage to answer in detail the points he made because they were all in elaboration of his argument in favour of the Amendment.

I should like to say, as my right hon. Friend said during his speech on the Second Reading, that we are not seeking here to do anything sinister at all, but are merely seeking to bring the Air Corporations into line with the other nationalised industries. I think that the hon. Member for Uxbridge would be the first to appreciate, understand and applaud anything which can be done to make it possible for us to get the very best men at the head of these two extremely important organisations which not only account for a very considerable amount of public funds, but which are also the spearhead in many directions of great financial gain and prestige for this country in the future. That is all that we are seeking to do.

I accept the principle of the Amendment put forward, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that we may have to change the wording when it reaches another place.

Mr. Beswick

I acknowledge the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary, and I thank him for his offer, which we gladly accept. May I assure him that we did not for one moment think that there was anything sinister in this Clause. I appreciate the reasons why it has been brought forward and I accept some of those reasons, as I indicated earlier. I also accept that the wording may conceivably have to be changed in another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.