§ Q3. Mr. Liptonasked the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to ensure that any waiver of pension by any former Lord Chancellor shall in each case be made permanent.
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir.
§ Mr. LiptonDoes not the Prime Minister realise that the good repute of ex-Lord Chancellors, who normally do not sell themselves in the market place, is even mare gravely prejudiced when, as in the latest case, the pension is drawn for a period, then waived, but with an entitlement nevertheless to draw it again? Why cannot Plessey look after its own employees on their retirement?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Member has introduced this subject in a rather unnecessarily offensive way, referring to an old colleague of ours who is deeply respected in all parts of the 205 House. It seems to me not unreasonable that he should draw his pension when he is entitled to draw it and renounce it when he is earning from another source.
§ Mr. Gordon WalkerDoes the Prime Minister appreciate that it is now widely thought that he is treating this grave matter rather too flippantly, that there is real concern about it, and that it cannot be brushed off with a flippant answer?
§ The Prime MinisterMine was a courteous reply to a very rude supplementary question.
§ Mr. GrimondWould not the Prime Minister agree that it is extremely unsatisfactory that the head of the whole judiciary should go straight from the Woolsack into private industry? Would he not also agree that a large pension was arranged for ex-Lord Chancellors with this very difficulty in view—that they should not he under any temptation, or any necessity, to find their living in another way? Was it not also part of the reasoning behind the pension that they should be available for judicial work in the House of Lords? Is it contemplated that if he gives up his present post with this firm and draws his pension he will return to sit as a judge in the House of Lords?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has got the facts quite right. There has always been a pension for the Lord Chancellor, and I think that in the old days the understanding was that the pension was partly because he could not easily return to his own profession. It was a convention that an ex-Lord Chancellor, while his health allowed it, should sit to add his help in the judicial work of the House of Lords, but that if his health did not allow it he should continue to draw the pension. If he is not drawing the pension, I do not see what grievance arises.