HC Deb 03 November 1970 vol 805 cc1032-8

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the yearly rate of salary which may be granted to the Comptroller and Auditor General under section 1 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1957 be increased from £9,800 to £11,900 for periods before 1st January 1971 and to £14,000 for later periods, and the date from which, under subsection (3) of that section, the person now holding that office is entitled to a salary at an increased rate by virtue of this Resolution be 1st July 1970.—[Mr. David Howell.]

12.22 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

I had hoped that we should have had some explanation from the Minister why this Motion has been tabled, but I do not want the matter to go through on the nod.

Hon. Members opposite seem very anxious, as do the Government, always to give large salary increases to those already in receipt of large salaries. We now have this Motion, and a Motion relating to the Parliamentary Commissioner, coming forward late at night when the Press and the public are not here, and when the Government hope that not too much notice will be taken. This is nothing short of scandalous. I am not in any way speaking against the two gentlemen concerned—there is nothing personal in what I say.

A few days ago the Government announced to the House that they intended to increase taxation on the chronic sick, the disabled and the poorer section of the population and to abolish welfare for children and the lower-paid section. They have said consistently that they will not give a few shillings extra each week to the dustmen, and the lower-paid workers. Yet they seem to expect the House to accept on the nod Motions which increase the salaries of the two gentlemen concerned from £9,800 to £11,900, with backdating from July last.

That is not good enough. In addition, that £11,900 is to be increased to £14,000 as from 1st January. No reason has been given why these two gentlemen can have in total a £3,200-a-year increase next January, and yet when it comes to the lower-paid workers we are told, "An increase of 55s. is much too much; it would be inflationary". I cannot understand this argument.

The Government were elected to cut expenditure and yet within a few days of starting to cut down on the poorest sections of the population they suggested these fantastic increases. It do not know which trade union is concerned in this case. It must be a very good trade union; I should like to become a member of it. Perhaps the Minister will tell me which trade union negotiations went on, which trade union negotiated and whether the claim was put before the Prices and Incomes Board before it was wound up.

I cannot agree to this increase. I am not personalising, because people in the higher income groups can, without any question, get increases. I am not being political, because I have attacked other Governments in the past on the same grounds. But when the last Government increased the tax-free allowance of the peers of the Realm, to which I objected, they did not at the same time cut the social welfare benefits of the poorer sections. I cannot fathom why a person on £9,800 a year is entitled to receive not only an increase but a retrospective increase and an anticipatory increase.

We are all fed up with the dustmen's strike. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] We would like to see them back at work. Here is a way to end the strike: offer to the dustmen an immediate increase retrospective to last July and promise them another increase on 1st January, 1971—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

Order. We are not discussing the dustmen. The hon. Gentleman must keep to the terms of the Motion.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

But we are discussing these Orders, and I am entitled to ask why preferential treatment is given to higher-paid workers—in this case two individuals—because this applies to the chairmen and members of the nationalised boards. It even applies to a Labour peer appointed as chairman of the "think tank", as the Press describes it. Why is there no question of holding up or discussing an increase for these higher-paid people, of referring it to anyone, or suggesting that they should wait because the increase could be in- flationary? Yet we are asked to get the workers to limit their wage demands. Do the Government think that when some people are to get £3,000 to £4,000 extra on £10,000 it can go through on the nod, with no explanation?

It could go through without any question from hon. Members opposite. But the miners digging coal are considered the most wicked people out when they try to get £5 extra. Of course, the two gentlemen concerned do not even have to trouble to go to their unions. I may be wrong. Perhaps they have threatened to strike if they did not get the increase. That may be a good reason why the Government would give the extra. But we might be able to put up with them being on strike much more conveniently than we are now putting up with the dustmen being on strike.

I am entitled to draw a comparison between this and the vicious treatment the Government mete out to the poorer sections of the population, to the chronic sick, the disabled, and those with incomes of only a few pounds a week. They are having their rents and rates put up, as well as their food prices and almost everything one can mention.

If the increase is being given because the real value of these gentlemen's salaries has fallen owing to the rise in the cost of living, that might be a good reason. But if that is so, the same can be said for a number of other sections of the population. I see the Leader of the House nodding.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw)

Not at all.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

One of my hon. Friends is very unkind, and suggests that the right hon. Gentleman is nodding to sleep. I would not suggest that.

If the increases are being given because prices have gone up, why have not the salaries of Members of Parliament been put up? The top civil servants, the judges, and everyone we can think of, have had various increases since 1964, and M.P.s have not. I am not suggesting that we should get them. But I should like to know why the Government are adamant in refusing even to have the matter investigated. They are very anxious to bring these Orders forward very late at night in the hope that no one will oppose the Motions and that they will go through on the nod.

My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) challenged hon. Members opposite to go into the Division Lobby on the previous Motion. I now challenge hon. Members on this side, even on my own Front Bench, to tell against this Motion. If they will, I am quite willing to divide the House on it. I am doing this to help the Government. [Laughter.] I do so because the Government want people to restrain themselves from asking for too much in the way of increased salaries.

The Government are suggesting that 55s. a week is too much to demand. I cannot make that out. If 55s. is too much, surely a £5,000-a-year increase—about £100 a week—is also too much. If to use the poor old dustmen as an illustration is too delicate to mention, then I can mention other sections of the community. Many wage applications are in the pipeline. Recently, the Prime Minister said that about 8 per cent. was a reasonable percentage. The rise proposed in these Motions is much more than that. What is to be the reasonable percentage now? I suggest that Mr. Feather and the T.U.C. might now advise the trade unions to go for increases comparable to that suggested in these Motions. They could call in aid the fact that this increase is regarded as reasonable by the Government.

I have in my constituency a number of dock workers. They are a much maligned body of hard-working men. When they ask for an increase they are told it is exorbitant. In their case, £30 a week is reckoned to be too much but these two gentlemen are to be given an increase from £9,800 to £14,000, and we are told that that is nothing to which we should take exception. That might be the attitude of hon. Members opposite but it is not mine. Such a jump is too much and is something we should oppose.

Is this proposal to pay large salary increases retrospectively and cushioning large salary increases in advance the criterion to be followed in other instances? One can visualise in the next few months, if that is so, the chairmen of the boards of nationalised industries, and, no doubt, their members, asking to be treated the same way. Who knows but that our friends the High Court judges will want to be treated the same way. Indeed, workers in industry might ask to be treated in the same way. If they do, I want to be assured that the Government will not then say that workers cannot ask for increases in retrospect and in advance. If they give that assurance, I shall be happy to let these Motions go through.

I have put a number of Motions on the Notice Paper. I will not go through them all because that might take too long, but there are eight or nine of them. I have tried to show in them how the Government are not carrying out the maxim which has been accepted in this country for generations—that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. I quote in those Motions how the number of better-paid—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to develop arguments only on the Motions before the House. I hope that he will not go into detail on the other Motions which he has mentioned.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I did not intend to go into details about the other Motions. I was trying to give reasons why we should not agree to these Motions. I wanted to show what other people were getting, for I do not want it to be thought that I am singling out the Parliamentary Commissioner, the Ombudsman, and the Comptroller and Auditor General. I am opposed to the principle of paying these large increases.

If the Government are genuinely concerned to cut down expenses, why do they not cut the subsidies which are paid to Ministers who occupy Ministerial houses? The money saved in that way could be used to pay these higher salaries. It is not right for money saved at the expense of the chronic sick, the disabled and the school meals and school milk of school children, the poorer sections of the population, to be used for paying these increases and, clearly, part of that money will go to pay for these increases. One way in which to save money would be to charge Ministers a notional rent for their residences and the resulting large saving could be used to pay these salaries.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Member is trespassing too much on the patience of the House by his analogies. I think that he will agree with me that he has made his point. If I sense the attitude of the House correctly, it is that hon. Members are anxious to reach a decision. I think that the hon. Member would wish to accept what seems to be the general view of the House. But, of course, he is at liberty to go on if he wishes.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Those last words were appropriate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is nothing to stop any hon. Member from leaving if he wishes to do so and there is nothing to stop any hon. Member from not listening to me if he thinks that what I am saying is not palatable and if I remind him too much that this was not in the election addresses or in the manifesto of Conservative Members. When the Chancellor makes cuts in Government expenditure, he does not announce at the time that within a week he will be introducing proposals like this for increases in salary. I am asking for fair play among all sections of the population. I do not think that it is fair when, within a week of cuts which affect the poorer section of the population, vast increases are given to a small number of people.

12.43 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. David Howell)

I appreciate the interest of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) in this matter and his concern with wider economic issues which he has aired at some length. However, the issue before us is simple and narrow. It is simply whether the House wishes the servants mentioned in the Motions, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Parliamentary Commissioner, whose services are very valuable, to be paid at the same level as other senior civil servants, as has always been the practice.

The previous Government agreed to the increases, which are the second and third stages of increases agreed by the Plowden Committee on Higher Civil Service Pay. This is accepted practice. The single issue before us tonight is not the wider issues which the hon. Member has introduced—and I appreciate his interest in them—but whether the salaries of these two officials should be brought into line with those of other civil servants, as they always have been. They do good service for the House and we ought to pay tribute to their work.

I commend the two Motions to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the yearly rate of salary which may be granted to the Comptroller and Auditor General under section 1 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1957 be increased from £9,800 to £11,900 for periods before 1st January 1971 and to £14,000 for later periods, and the date from which, under subsection (3) of that section, the person now holding that office is entitled to a salary at an increased rate by virtue of this Resolution be 1st July 1970.