MR. SPEAKER KING'S RETIREMENT BILL (Hansard, 22 February 1971)

§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
At this hour of the night I must be extremely brief in commending the Bill to the House. I shall be happy to answer any points hon. Members may put if I catch your eye at the end of the debate, Mr. Speaker.
As I told the House last week when we debated the Financial Resolution, the main object of the Bill is to provide a pension of £5,000 a year to our former Speaker, Dr. King. The figure of £5,000 represents the compromise decided upon by the last Government following upon the publication of the Lawrence Committee's Report. That Committee recommended that the Speaker's pension should be increased from the £4,000 a year at which it had stood ever since 1832 to a figure of £6,000. However, the Government decided that for Ministers' salaries and other comparable payments only half the increase recommended by Lawrence should be paid, and that this should be applied to Mr. Speaker's salary. On the death of Sir Harry Hylton-Foster, his widow was paid a pension based upon a Speaker's pension of £5,000. That is halfway between the £4,000 and £6,000, and the Bill follows that precedent.
Mr. Speaker King retired on 11 th January and, accordingly, his pension is stated in the Bill to start from 12th January.
I should perhaps draw attention to the proviso to Clause 1(1), which is in the usual form. It provides that if and so long as Mr. Speaker King holds any Government post with a salary in excess of the pension of £5,000 he loses for that period half his pension. There are various forms of the provision which apply to most public offices, but, curiously enough, that relative to Mr. Speaker is one of the oldest of them all. It is obviously desirable in principle to avoid paying both full pension and full 236 pay simultaneously out of the public purse, and I think that the House will wish to support the provision.
I have an apology to make to the House in that I inadvertently misled the House on the previous occasion when referring to Mrs. King's position. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) had suggested that the widow's provision, instead of being the one-third that is provided for in the Bill, should be one-half of the husband's pension. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) supported him and asked whether it would be possible to discuss this matter in Committee. I am afraid that I did not have my wits about me—it was about 10.30 a.m. after an all-night sitting—and I erroneously assured him that we would be able to discuss it in Committee. I ask the House's forgiveness because unless a revised Money Resolution is tabled an Amendment to achieve this purpose would not be in order. However, the Government took careful note of the views expressed, coming as they did from both sides of the House, and we are considering whether it would be right to amend the Bill in this form. If this course seems appropriate—and there are ramifications which we have to consider—then the necessary Money Resolution will be tabled in good time before the Committee stage.
The proviso to Clause 1 (2) extends to Mrs. King's pension the same conditions as, broadly, already apply to the pensions of widows of Prime Ministers and Lord Chancellors. Subsection (3) charges the pensions on the Consolidated Fund.
The Bill is a short one but it embodies an expression of gratitude, respect and affection for a man who served this House well and nobly in the most demanding of all rôles, that of Mr. Speaker, and I commend it to the House.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)
Earlier, I objected to the rule being suspended for this Bill, and still object, because it has meant that we are considering the Second Reading at so late an hour—or, rather, so early an hour in the morning. From the beginning of this matter, the Government have persistently 237 and consistently tried to slip the Bill through at the latest possible time—or, to be more strictly correct, at the earliest possible time after an all-night sitting.
Indeed, the Financial Secretary now admits that he inadvertently misled the House on a previous occasion because it was after an all-night sitting. This is one of the reasons why I voice my protest against both the Bill and the method the Government have been adopting. The hon. Gentleman wrongly advised the House when the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) wanted, in effect, to increase the amount of money involved. Yet those of us who have been in the House long enough knew that, the Money Resolution having been passed, it was not possible for the Government to increase the amount. If the Government had not—as they have been doing for the last five weeks—been trying to slip the Bill through at an hour designed to avoid free and reasonable discussion, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman, who is conspicuous by his absence, might have been able to get, at a reasonable hour, the Amendment he had in mind.

§ Mr. Patrick Jenkin
My right hon. Friend, as one would expect from someone with his background, expressed his apologies to me for his absence tonight, which is due to circumstances beyond his control.

§ Mr. Lewis
I am not complaining. I did not ask the right hon. Gentleman to be here. He probably wants to be in bed, as I would have wished to be on so many occasions in the last five weeks. He is not here because he wants to be in another place, and I make no objection. But he could not get his Admendment in during the last debate because the Government had put the matter down for the end of an all-night sitting, just as they have again put it down for debate after a long debate tonight. All I am saying is that the right hon. Gentleman could, as other hon. Members could, have taken part had the debate been earlier, and then, perhaps, he would not have wrongly, and, no doubt, unwittingly, but, nevertheless, deliberately, misquoted me, as he did on the previous occassion, as indeed, did the Minister.
The Minister said on the previous occasion that I had said that this arose 238 from the Lawrence Committee Report. He told me to check with HANSARD. I checked with HANSARD. I made no reference to its having followed from the Lawrence Report. The Minister has himself this evening, or this morning, said that this derives from the Lawrence Report. In fact, it does not. He went on, having said that it derives from the Lawrence Report, to explain at length that it does not.
What happened? The hon. Gentleman explained that the Lawrence Committee recommended a £6,000 pension. The Bill says £5,000. I think there is a difference between £5,000 and £6,000. The Minister is right. The Government of that day, with the loyal and active support of the then Opposition, the present Government, supported the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister at that time in reducing the £6,000 to £5,000. The then Opposition, now this Government, supported that Government in saying that the £6,000 should be reduced to £5,000. Why did the then Government suggest that Ministers' salaries and the Speaker's salary and the Speaker's recommended pension, deriving from the original Lawrence Report, should be reduced, the salaries by half, and the pension from £6,000 to £5,000? The answer may be surprising, but the reason was that there was inflation, that prices were rising too high, and it was said that we could not then give such large increases to the Ministers at that time and they would have to wait a bit. It was also said that we could not give the Speaker his £6,000 pension because the time was not opportune: there was inflation.
I ask the Minister: is he going to tell me that from 1964 to 1971 there was not inflation? If so, that is rather different from what the present Prime Minister and Government say here almost every day of the week. In the previous debate tonight we had an argument whether or not the official estimate in the Defence White Paper of a 9 per cent. inflation in the next year is right. I am not going to argue now whether it is right or not. What I know is that we have had a higher degree of inflation during the past six months than at any time in the history of this country, and this I say from official figures which I have had from the Government themselves. There has been 239 a higher degree of inflation since June of last year through January this year than I or any hon. Member can remember; and it is getting worse, as we know from the Government.
So we had the original Lawrence recommendation of £6,000 reduced to £5,000 with the active and loyal support of both Government and Opposition, and I am not concerned with the order in which we put them, because it could be either the present Opposition, the former Government, or the present Government, the former Opposition. So both sides quite definitely confirmed that the pension should not have been increased in 1964 because the time was not then opportune and because prices were rising and because of inflation.
If the Minister is going to tell me now, in 1971, that £4,000 could go up by 25 per cent. to £5,000 because there is no inflation, I will accept that, but let him say the same to the postmen, the power workers and the police, whose increases have been held up because it has been said that to give them increases above the Government's suggested 19 per cent. would be catastrophic and ruinous to the nation.

§ Mr. Patrick Jenkin
I want to try to understand the argument, and I will do the hon. Gentleman the credit of assuming that he is putting it forward seriously. He has devoted about five minutes to explaining, perfectly properly, how the £6,000 recommendation of the Lawrence Committee was reduced to £5,000.

§ Mr. Lewis
To £4,000.

§ Mr. Jenkin
It was reduced to £5,000. It was originally £4,000, Lawrence recommended £6,000 and the Government compromised at £5,000. The hon. Gentleman says that we are proposing to put up the £4,000 to £5,000 and that we should do the same for policemen, postmen and the rest. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman has misquoted himself. Perhaps he would like to put it right.

§ Mr. Lewis
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the correction. Dr. King's predecessor received £4,000 and former Prime Ministers and Lord Chancellors are also on a £4,000 pension. The former Prime Ministers Mr. Harold 240 Macmillan and Lord Avon draw pensions of £4,000 a year. I mistakenly said that the Lawrence Committee recommended £6,000 and it was reduced to £4,000. It has been £4,000 and it is now proposed to increase the £4,000 to £5,000. Previous Prime Ministers are entitled to claim £4,000 a year, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) cannot claim a pension while drawing a salary as Leader of the Opposition.

§ Mr. Jenkin
I am now speaking subject to correction, but I believe I am right in saying that when the Government's decision was taken in 1965 to raise the pension of people in this category from £4,000 to £5,000, although that was only half-way to the Lawrence recommendation, it raised the ceiling of previous holders of office. Pensions Increase Acts passed since that date allowed the pensions of former holders of office in receipt of a pension to be increased to £5,000. There is nothing new in the £5,000 figure embodied in the Bill. It is based on exactly the same precedent as the Bill for Lady Hylton-Foster which was introduced by the previous Government in 1965. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that.

§ Mr. Lewis
The Minister says that he is open to correction. I hope he is, because I was not contradicted when I previously made this point. In answer to Questions I have asked about the pensions of former Prime Ministers and Lord Chancellors I have been told by Treasury spokesmen that they draw £4,000 per annum, and that the Leader of the Opposition cannot draw a pension while receiving a salary.
I am not concerned with whether or not the Government accepted the whole or part of the recommendations. I am saying that at a time when the Government are saying to hard-working Post Office workers that they cannot have £20 a week for getting up early in the morning six days in the week, they are saying that a man who was in the House and who now is on retirement is to receive £100 a week. That does not seem fair, and, therefore, I am protesting against it.
The Government are operating with double standards. They are denying £20 a week to those workers, yet are giving 241 £100 a week to a man who was getting the equivalent of £20,000 a year after having been employed for 5½ years.

§ Mr. Jenkin
It was a hard stint.

§ Mr. Lewis
Yes, it is a hard stint, and there are other right hon. and hon. Members who have done a hard stint for much longer than 5½ years. What does that great noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who has done 48 years' hard work and endeavour as a Parliamentarian, get by way of pension? Does he get £5,000, £4,000, £3,000 or even £2,000 a year? No. He gets £900 a year, less tax—that is to say, £600 by the time he receives it.
Dr. King, by being paid £5,000 a year, on the basis of service in the House for 5½ years, is getting the equivalent of £900 per year of service. On the basis of £900 per year for 48 years, for Manny Shinwell the figure would work out at about £47,000 a year in pension. I am sure he would settle for half, if not for a quarter. The Government obviously work on a different system. Assuming they work on a percentage of the last year's earnings, let us say 65 per cent. of salary, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, should get 65 per cent. of £3,250, which is about £1,900 a year.
When we discussed this matter on the last occasion there was no mention of the detailed comparison of Lawrence, and I am glad that it has now been mentioned. Lawrence was an independent review body that was set up to consider salaries and conditions of service of Ministers and Members of Parliament. Included in that review was the Speaker of the House. The Leader of the House has announced that another review body is to be set up to look into the salaries and conditions of service of Members of Parliament, but he has not done much about setting up that review body. He is still talking about it. I have heard whispers that he is to put it off until the autumn. Within a few days of Dr. King's retirement on 11th January the Government got cracking on this matter and were setting the pace, but they are not setting the pace with regard to the others included in that review. As yet, no such announcement has been made.
If they are trying to invoke Lawrence as a good reason for this, the Govern- 242 ment, to be fair, should recognise that the Lawrence Committee reviewed the salaries of all those people, including Mr. Speaker, and say that they will now have another review body—which they can call Lawrence II or whatever they like—which they will ask to investigate the question again because, when it was considered before, Lawrence investigated not only the salaries of Members of Parliament, Ministers and Mr. Speaker, but their pensions as well. I cannot see why they are waiting.
Why, therefore, do not the Government say that they now accept part of the Lawrence recommendations which the former Government rejected and ask the House to accept the increase which Lawrence recommended, but which the previous Government accepted only in part, for Ministerial salaries? That would be logical.
The Government might go further and decide to do something with regard to Members' wives. We have heard how marvellous it is to do something for the next of kin of what I term the pillars of the Establishment, but when it comes to people like the noble Lord, Lord Shin-well, we do not see the same desire to be expeditious in giving the same type of pension to the widows of former Members who have had 48 years' service.

§ Sir John Langford-Holt (Shrewsbury)
The hon. Member appears to be arguing that Lawrence was a fair judgment of what Members of Parliament, Ministers and Mr. Speaker should receive. Am I not right in supposing that the hon. Member, like me, receives the salary which was proposed by Lawrence and that all we are being asked to support tonight is a proposal that Mr. Speaker be paid £1,000 a year less than Lawrence proposed?

§ Mr. Lewis
The hon. Member has, perhaps, misunderstood the point and I must, therefore, repeat it.
The Lawrence Committee made recommendations on a number of points. The Government of the day, supported by the Opposition—their positions are now reversed—refused to accept Lawrence in toto and accepted only parts of the recommendations. It is true that one part, which both sides accepted, was the increase in Members' salaries. It was agreed that other parts should be let off 243 because the time was not then opportune, there was inflation and the cost of living was rising. It was suggested that they should be left until later.
If that was the reason in 1964, it is my belief that there has been a little more inflation since then, and there is more inflation now. The Government have said forcibly—indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said only on Thursday and Friday—how terrible it was. I had brought in aid the question of the postmen, the power workers and others working at the bench, but that was only an introductory remark. I was then going into more detail.
One of the reasons why, at that time, both sides were not too anxious to do much was that there was a clamour for increases in old-age pensions, which some pensioners eventually got. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), whom I am pleased to see present, has been very active, together with other hon. Members on this side, and the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and myself, in trying to get increases for old-age pensioners.
About a fortnight ago this Government, not the previous Government, refused to give old-age pensioners any increase, and said that they could not have any increase in February, March, April, May, June, July, August or September, but that possibly in October, in the autumn, it would be reviewed. Knowing that the cost of living has risen more rapidly during the last six months than at any time in our history, knowing that now the rate of inflation is running at 9 per cent., and knowing that old-age pensioners have suffered and are suffering much more than Mr. Speaker King, and much more than any Minister or any hon. Member, the Government do not say, "We must hurry up and slip a Bill through on the nod." Believe me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would not then oppose it. I would not oppose the suspension. I would be here, as I have been for the last four or five weeks to take part in this debate. I would be the first to give it a cheer. I assure the Minister that I would not oppose it. If he wanted it to go through on the nod, provided that the amount was the same, I would let it go through. Most of my hon. Friends would do the same.
244 But the Government have done the reverse of that. They have said, "We will do it for one man but not for the rest of the pensioners." That is not fair play.
I have accepted the fact that it is wrong and has been wrong to do it. That is why I have opposed it in the past. I opposed all the Speakers pension increases for exactly the same reason. Even on that salary, it is wrong for the Government—I am not the Government, unfortunately—to say that I, as a Member of Parliament, should have the increase, and the Ministers and Mr. Speaker King should have the increase, but not the old-age pensioners. Hence I am saying that they try to slip it through at one, two or three o'clock in the morning, when they hope that there will be no discussion and, as would be the case, that the Press would not get it, and that it will go through and everyone will let it go, and the dear old-age pensioner will know nothing about it.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
On the subject of old-age pensioners, my hon. Friend ought to point out the fact that the very first time that the Bill was presented to the House was on the same day as we debated old-age pensions, which was Thursday a fortnight ago. Along with my hon. Friend, I objected at that time. An additional point which ought to be made is that since pensions were increased in November, 1969, the purchasing power of that £5 pension for a single person is now down almost to £4—a reduction of more than the amount of the increase at that time.

§ Mr. Lewis
I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I am pleased that he is here. I hope that he can make a speech, because we are unlimited on time for this debate.

§ Mr. Skinner
Are we?

§ Mr. Lewis
Yes, we can continue as long as we like, as the Government desire it to go on. Who knows? We might be able to keep it going so that when the Minister replies at nine o'clock in the morning he might say again that he has made a mistake because he has made a slip and did not mean to say what he subsequently will say. Let us keep the debate going, until such time as the representatives of some of the morning 245 papers are here to report the facts and figures which the Government seem loth to have reported. By then, it may be that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover will catch Mr. Speaker's eye and will be able to cross some of the i's, and dot some of the t's and enlarge upon some of the points that I have not made in sufficient detail.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) has acused me of making objections. I am not ashamed to say that I have done so consistently. I am pleased in that respect to follow in the footsteps of those whom I regard as being some of the better types of members of the Labour Party. I have in mind, for example, the first Labour Member of Parliament, James Keir Hardie. My hon. Friend will be glad that I mention Keir Hardie, because he was a great miners' leader. It was he who first suggested a reduction in the pension of a former Speaker and opposed the Government's proposal. Keir Hardie sat in this House as the hon Member for West Ham, South, so he and I have a certain affinity.
Another Labour Member to take a similar line was the official leader of the party, the right hon. J. R. Clynes, and there have been other notable examples. When I am attacked in this House by those who say how wicked I am to be opposed to those whom I term "pillars of the establishment", I say that I am pleased to do it. I prefer to follow in the footsteps of Keir Hardie and J. R. Clynes than those of some others whose names I cannot remember.
I am not ashamed to say that I intend to debate this proposal thoroughly and put forward logical reasons for not giving this Bill, small though it may be, an unopposed Second Reading.

§ Mr. Skinner
My hon. Friend has referred to the possibility of dividing the House on this matter, and he has pointed out that there have been several occasions when that has been done. Perhaps I might refresh his memory. I have reason to believe that there has been an occasion since the war when no fewer than 155 hon. Members on this side of the House have voted against a similar proposal.

§ Mr. Lewis
There again, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to contribute to the debate. Obviously, he has done more research than I have and is in pos- 246 session of a great many facts and figures which will be of interest to the House. I was not aware of that fact, but I am more than willing to accept my hon. Friend's word if he says that as many as 150 hon. Members on this side of the House voted on that occasion. If we can keep the debate going until 9 o'clock, it may be that some of my hon. Friends who, like the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames preferred their beds will be here to take part and give us their support when we call a Division.

§ Mr. Skinner
We shall be in difficulty if our Front Bench does not provide Tellers.

§ Mr. Lewis
In any event, we have some supporters coming in later.
I regret that I was not able to inform the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames that I intended to refer to him. I spent most of the evening looking for him. I thought that he would have been here. The previous debate was concerned with an important matter. He contributed to the discussion when he debated the matter on an earlier occasion, and I was hoping to see him present tonight. I should like to correct the right hon. Gentleman, because he also said that during the debate I made certain statements. If the right hon. Gentleman refers to HANSARD he will find that he was completely incorrect.
Turning to the Bill, I should like to ask the Minister a question about Clause 1, which states: Provided that one half of the annuity shall abate and be suspended during any period that the said Right Honourable Horace Maybray King hereafter holds any place, office or employment under Her Majesty of equal or greater amount in salary, profits or emolument than the amount of the annuity. I understand that if the Bill goes through Dr. King will get a pension of £5,000 a year. For the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, that is £100 per week. When my hon. Friend hears arguments about the miners being overpaid at £30 or £40 a week, if they get that much, he might remind people that there is quite a bit of difference between that and a pension of £100 per week after five and a half years. My hon. Friend may have to point out the difference.
I understand that Dr. King will get £5,000 a year. He could then have a 247 sinecure. Who knows, he might be appointed chairman of the Post Office tribunal. I assume that, provided that he draws £4,500—indeed, £4,900—he can draw that amount plus his £5,000, making £9,900 a year. As my Post Office friends would say, "Not bad if you can get it." That means that Dr. Horace King would then be drawing about £1,000 a year more than he was getting as Speaker.
This seems a crazy way of looking at economics. I am not an economist. I do not understand economics. However, it seems strange that as Speaker of the House of Commons for five and a half years getting a salary of £8,500 a year, on retirement he should get £5,000 a year pension and a sinecure under the Government at £4,900, making £9,900 a year, all out of the Exchequer, and no one can say a word against him.

§ Mr. Skinner
Surely my hon. Friend is not suggesting that ex-Speaker King would ever think of accepting a job as chairman of the Post Office tribunal in view of what happened to its last pay referee?

§ Mr. Lewis
My hon. Friend has a very astute mind. I have not given thought to this point, but I can see the working of my hon. Friend's mind. Dr. King obviously would wonder whether he might get the order of the boot before he took on the job. It is a good point, so I must choose another sinecure.
Instead of that job, Dr. King might take a job as High Commissioner for, say, Australia. My hon. Friend smiles. I hope that he does not think that this is an impossibility. This actually happened. My hon. Friend was not here at the time, but I was. I do not think that the Minister was here at the time either. I am not sure that the Minister is right when he says that this abatement always happens. When the former Speaker Shakespeare Morrison retired and was appointed High Commissioner for Australia, he drew his salary as High Commissioner and his pension. It was only after a scream went up in this House, when there were loud protestations led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) that he voluntarily relinquished half his pension. But he still drew the £10,000, and with the other £2,000 he was not too greatly underpaid.

§ Mr. Skinner
In reference to the question of ex-Speaker Morrison's salary, I have reason to believe that this was one of the occasions when there was an uproar in the House, but when there was also a vote. Is it not true that as a result the salary was cut to £2,000?

§ Mr. Lewis
I am obliged to my hon. Friend. He has refreshed my memody. I have not the photographic memory which some hon. Members have, but I now remember the facts. I have inadvertently misled the House. I told a lie unintentionally. I said that I had never opposed, but I did; I was one of the 150 hon. Members who went into the Division Lobby on that occasion to appose the suggestion that the £4,000 should be pro tanto reduced to £2,000 to allow "Shakespeare" Morrison, as we called him, to have the £10,000 plus the £2,000. But there again, he was receiving about £5,000 a year more after retirement than he had been getting as Speaker.
I would also point out that this provision is very loose. It provides, in effect, that Speaker King can draw up to—I would say £4,999. He can draw any sum less than £5,000. He can therefore draw £4,999, in addition to his £5,000. A number of sinecures could be offered to him.
I do not know how this will affect the question of outside earnings. The Clause refers to "employment under Her Majesty". I would have preferred the phrase "State employment". That leads me to mention a case which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will remember. I think that you and I are the only two hon. Members in the House who were here at the time. We had a Lord Chancellor who had been called Sir David Maxwell Fyfe when he was in this House.
For the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, I should point out that tied up with this the the question of a former Lord Chancellor, who also get a pension of £4,000. The only difference is that if the Lord Chancellor held office for only one day—if he sat on the Woolsack for only one day—and then retired, he would get a pension of £4,000 per year for life. His wife would also receive a part-annuity.
Reference has been made to the hard work done by these people and the need 249 not to allow them to suffer any hardship. But what happened in the case of Sir David Maxwell Fyfe—Lord Kilmuir as he became when he went to the other place? He left the office of Lord Chancellor and within a few weeks took the chairmanship of Plessey. In fact, I am not sure that he even left, or drew his first pension. From Plessey he received £10,000 or £12,000 a year.
Again, there was an uproar in the House. People said, "This is a bit much. We have allowed this to go through on the nod. We have listened to the Treasury Bench". It was not the present Treasury Bench, but it was the same Treasury. The same Treasury advisers, with the same sort of Ministers, tried again, to get him his pension. When he took up the chairmanship of Plessey, he voluntarily agreed to give up his pension.
The Bill says that the pension will be pro tanto reduced below £5,000 in certain circumstances, and I assume that he will be able to draw £4,999 on top of the £5,000 if working for the Government in some State appointment. But this does not preclude any employment which is not State employment. He might be appointed chairman of Plessey, the salary for which has risen to £20,000. I assume that he would still be entitled to his pension.

§ Mr. Skinner
Would my hon. Friend consider the possibility that ex-Speaker King might become chairman of the National Coal Board, especially since, from July onwards, we shall be without one? He spoke of £4,999, which would be commensurate with the smaller Coal Board after hiving-off—

§ Mr. Jenkin
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is extremely distasteful, but is it in order that hon. Members should cast these disparaging aspersions on a former holder of the office of Speaker—indeed, the first holder of that office to have come from the Labour Party?

§ Mr. Lewis
Further to that point of order. I resent that remark, because Mr. Speaker is not a member of any party. He is an impartial person. Also, I referred to a former Mr. Speaker, not the present one. I would not cast any aspersion on the present holder of that high office.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)
I am afraid that I have to rule that, so far, there is nothing out of order.

§ Mr. Lewis
I am obliged. The Minister is getting a little touchy about this. This is not a question of what they might do but of what they have done, and not once but several times. The noble Lord, Lord Robens, for instance, may or may not still be a member of the Labour Party. I am not concerned with what party they belong to but with the principle. I opposed previous Ministers—I wish the Minister would listen—

§ Mr. Patrick Jenkin
I am listening to every single word—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That is an offensive remark, and I think that the hon. Gentleman should apologise to the Minister forthwith.

§ Mr. Lewis
I apologise immediately. I meant not that he should listen but that I wished he would understand. I explained that I was not opposing simply Mr. Speaker King. I opposed Clifton Brown, Shakespeare Morrison and Harry Hylton-Foster. But my opposition was not to any of them personally; it was to the principle.
I want the Minister to understand that I am not attacking them personally. Keir Hardie and J. R. Clynes opposed Speaker Peel and Speaker Onslow. I was not born then. But my objection today is on the same principle as that which they supported in those days. I hope that the Minister—to whom I apologise —will understand that my remarks are not personal to any occupant of the Chair at the moment or in the past. Unfortunately, I must use names because of the nature of the Bill.
But Dr. King has always been a good friend of mine—and I hope that he will continue to be a good friend. The Minister gives a cynical chuckle. Ultimately Dr. King will get this money from 12th January. In the early days, when Horace King was first in the House, he supported me, or I supported him, in saying that large sums should not be paid in high pensions until the old-age pensioners had higher pensions. Horace King and two or three others said that they 251 would not accept an increase in Members' salaries until old-age pensioners were given an increase. Afterwards he changed his mind and I believe that he accepted the increase. But I believe that if he were on the back benches tonight, he would be sitting where my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is sitting and would be supporting my views.
Lord Robens was a member of the Labour Party and may still be a member. I single him out not as a member of the Labour Party but as chairman—I think he still is—of a nationalised industry. I want to know whether the Bill will have an unfortunate effect on the Government's policy, explained earlier by the Financial Secretary, to cut public expenditure. Lord Robens is to retire from the Coal Board, and to take up two part-time jobs each of £10,000 a year. But he has given notice that he wants a pension from the Coal Board. If the Bill is passed. Dr. King will get, in round figures, £1,000 a year for each year of service. Will my old friend Lord Alf Robens be able to say, "I have done 10 years' service at £20,000 a year and, therefore, I want a pension of £10,000 a year"? Will the Minister give an assurance that this will not be used as an argument for giving a £10,000-a-year pension to Lord Robens?
The same argument could be used in regard to the former chairman of the Post Office Corporation. He might call the Bill in aid and say, "I have been promised a £76,000 'golden handshake'. It has not come yet. You have now agreed to a £5,000-a-year pension for the former Speaker. I claim my right to a pension of £5,000".
If the Government's argument stands up at all, it can be used to justify other claims on the same basis. But this is a Government which have been battling against the lower-paid, picking out, in the main, the poorer people in the lower working grades in our nationalised industries. When these workers see that others have had an increase, and they ask for fair and equivalent treatment, the Government refuse to accept any relationship between, say, the power workers and the Post Office workers. "Although someone else has had X shillings", they say, "you cannot classify yourself on the same basis."
252 I have referred to Lord Robens and Lord Hall. Lord Melchett, I understand, is to be the next. I see that my hon. Friend pulls a face at that. He does not know that Lord Melchett is for the high jump.

§ Mr. Skinner
I knew that Lord Melchett was very much in dispute with certain aspects of Government policy, especially with regard to the hiving-off of the special steels division, but I was not aware that it had got that far and that Lord Melchett was on the point of retiring or being thrown out.

§ Mr. Lewis
My hon. Friend should keep his ears open, and probably to the ground. I heard a leak—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. This will not quite do. We are going into too much detail on matters not directly related to the Bill. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to come back to the Bill.

§ Mr. Lewis
I am explaining that there is good reason to oppose the Bill on Second Reading, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am showing how it could be used, and almost certainly will be used, in a leap-frogging effort—to use the Government's phrase—to give to others the right to make a similar claim for a pro rota pension. I pointed out that Lord Robens has resigned and he will be asking for a pension. Lord Melchett is in process of being kicked out, and, no doubt, he will be asking for a pension.
Will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no attempt by the Government to allow these higher-paid people to use the Second Reading of this Bill as an argument for claiming a pension based in the same way?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I have to warn the hon. Member that there is getting to be rather too much repetition of the same argument using different names. That is what made me apprehensive when the hon. Member began to talk in detail, and encourage his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to join him, about Lord Melchett. One cannot use the same arguments continually even though substituting different names.

§ Mr. Lewis
I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was the last resignation, or order of the boot, of 253 which I have heard to date and I will not proceed with it further now, but by the time the Bill gets to Committee there may be others, and I shall be able to refer to them in Committee.
I was explaining that Dr. King would be able to have a State job paying up to £4,999 a year and still maintain his pension. In the past, Speakers were able to occupy sinecures or other State appointments, but, because of the uproar about that in the House, instead of them being left to reduce their pensions pro tanto, provision for that is made in the Bill.
But certainly local government officers and, I believe, civil servants—the Financial Secretary will be able to confirm or deny this—are not able to draw a pension and maintain a job similar to that for which they draw a pension; they have to choose. If my local National Insurance officer retires, at 60 and after 30 or 40 years' service, not on £5,000 a year, he cannot take on a job as a Labour Exchange manager, even though there is a great demand for such people because of all the unemployment which the Government are creating, now 750,000 and going up to 1 million. He cannot take a job with another Ministry unless he sacrifices his whole pension. But Mr Speaker King will be allowed to retain half his salary. I should like this rule to be applied to all State and semi-State employees who are paid by Treasury money out of the Consolidated Fund. I want to see fair play for all. If that is the position I would not object to this being done.
Clause 1(2) says that the right to the annuity of Mrs. King shall be subject to such limitations and conditions as appear to the Minister for the Civil Service to be appropriate and to correspond to those applicable to widows' pensions under Part II of the Ministerial Salaries and Members' Pensions Act 1965. So we return to the point I made originally when discussing the pension or annuity for Dr. King, that it is rather strange that in one respect the Government want to stick to the basis of Members' and Ministerial salaries, where it suits them, but not where they do not want to. Here again they have returned to the ruling dealing with Ministerial salaries and Members' pensions which arose directly from the Lawrence Committee.
254 I am sorry, but I must keep pointing out in fairness that I am not against Mrs. King's getting 50 per cent. I wish that the Minister had told the Leader of the House to put the first Motion down at a reasonable hour, and then we should not have had to rush it through. But are the wives of all Members to be treated on the same basis? The best example is the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, a very great man. I was going to say "old man", but that would be an insult. Let me say that he is not so young as he was, but he is certainly not an old man. I think that he is approaching 84 or 85. God forbid that it should happen, but he might be called to higher places. I should like to be assured that his widow would receive at least the same sort of pension for his 48 years' service as Mrs. King will get for Horace King's 5½ years' service. I do not think that that is putting it too highly. She might well argue that after that period of service she should be entitled to six, seven or eight times as much, but I should be happy if the Minister could say that she will get exactly the same.
The Minister objected earlier because I was personalising. I am speaking in a rather limited way and hurriedly, without going into too much detail. It is very difficult for me to speak on a Bill which is personalised by its title and in such a short time to deal with all the points I have in mind without personalising.
As the hon. Gentleman seems upset when I mention personalities, I will pick myself out. For my sins or otherwise, I have been in the House for just on 26 years. If I were to retire tomorrow, what do you think my pension would be, Mr. Deputy Speaker? It does not take long to tell you. It would not even be one new half penny. I would not even get one half penny after 26 years if I retired tomorrow. If I died tomorrow—I would not like to, of course, but at least my troubles would be over—what would my wife get? [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says it would solve a lot of problems. He said it sotto voce. Perhaps I can say it out loud. I agree that many people would like that to happen. But I take it in the sense in which he said it.

§ Mr. Patrick Jenkin
Despite all the difficulties the hon. Gentleman causes, I would not wish that upon him. I was 255 only pointing out that it would relieve us of some of our difficulties.

§ Mr. Lewis
The hon. Gentleman is an old friend of mine, although not politically. I take his remark as he meant it—jocularly. I know he did not really mean it.
If I dropped dead tomorrow—it would be a relief to many people, although not, I know, to the hon. Gentleman—I would not get a penny. Of course, I would not have to worry. But I have a wife and she would get less than one half penny. She would get sweet—but I must not use an unparliamentary expression. My hon. Friend, who comes from the mining industry, will know what I mean. My wife would get nothing. I do not think that fair. I am personalising it through my own case but dozens of hon. Members are in the same position. It is very unfair, not on me but on my wife and daughter.
I want to digress for a moment, although it is still relevant to the Bill, because these things need to be discussed for a number of reasons, some of which I have put and many more of which I have yet to put. The only paper which has supported me is the Sunday Express —and I hate to have to confess that to the House. But the deputy editor, Mr. John Gordon, was not correct when he said that politicians in the House do themselves very well. I hate to disabuse him, but politicians in the House do not do themselves well at all. Two-thirds of hon. Members, if anything happened to them tomorrow, would get no pension at all. Neither would their wives.

§ Mr. Patrick Jenkin
No.

§ Mr. Lewis
The hon. Gentleman says, "No". I will prove it to him. I have proved it in my own case. I had the happiest and most wonderful birthday of my life last Sunday. On Sunday, 21st of this month, 150,000 people were out on the streets of London celebrating my birthday, and I am glad to say that, like me, they were all good trade unionists. I shall remember that birthday as long as I live. I was 54. I must wait till I am 65—or 60? No, I am sure it is 65—before I can be entitled to claim any pension, and so I shall have had to have done 37 years' service before I can draw any pension.
256 Two-thirds of the hon. Members on this side of the House—at least two-thirds—are well under 65 and will have to serve many years before they can qualify for pension. I do not say hon. Members opposite will have to wait so long, because they are old fogeys over there. I say that in the nicest spirit, and not in a derogatory sense. But so many of them are older than hon. Members on this side.
The Financial Secretary may have at the back of his mind what he terms financial aid, but that is not material to this pension business, and it is on a means test basis, and I could only draw that aid, or my wife could draw it, only if we were in abject poverty and after a means test. I emphasise again that I am not objecting to Mrs. King getting this pension if it is allied to Ministers' and Members' payments. By no means am I objecting. All I am wondering is, why are the Government acting with such wonderful expedition and working so quickly on behalf of two individuals, when they cannot act with the same expedition for the Members of the House. If it is fair and right and proper to bring in a £5,000 a year pension for one former Member of this House, I hope the Minister can bring in an amended Ways and Means Resolution to make this 50 per cent. grant for Mrs. King, and I do not understand why it cannot be done—indeed, I go further: why it should not be done—for every hon. Member.
Now comes the crunch, and this is the point I want to make. The Government say, "Ah, we are going to review Members' salaries and pensions one day; we are going to appoint a review body one day." Not tomorrow. Why? "Because the time is not opportune. It is a bit difficult. We do not want it thrown against us that we are attacking the Post Office workers, the power workers, while at the same time seeing that we pay this money to M.P.s."
The Minister used the last time, on the Money Resolution, the same argument he used on this Bill, namely, the arrears of time. Surely that can be applied to hon. Members, because hon. Members are the only body of people I know of in this country who for seven years have not had their salaries or pensions altered in any shape or form.
257 The pension is the vital part of this Bill. I was going to say I exonerate the Minister, but I will not exonerate him; I will only castigate the Minister by half, and by half the former occupant of his office, now in another place, and so, members of both Governments. For two years attempts have been made to improve the pensions of hon. Members, not for me, because I shall not get one, but for others who have given a lifetime's service to the House, including one right hon. Gentleman who has given 48 years' service. The Government are basing the Bill partly on the Ministerial Salaries and Members's Pensions Act, 1965, but although the Government are giving one or two individuals great improvements, which I do not object to, they will not review those other hon. Members and their wives, hon. Members who have given as much as 48 years' service, for which they will receive—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. We have come to the stage where I have to give the hon. Member a serious warning about tedious repetition of argument. I am listening most attentively to what he is saying. I do not know whether he quite realises himself that he is going over and over again the same arguments. I give him this warning: that I shall not tolerate it indefinitely, and that unless he can produce fresh arguments I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

§ Mr. Lewis
I am disappointed in that, Sir. In the last few moments I have been dealing with Mrs. King's pension. During the whole of my address I have not said a word about Mrs. King's pension—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That is why I am worried about whether the hon. Gentleman realises what he is saying. He has over and over again mentioned Mrs. King and her pension.

§ Mr. Lewis
I am sorry, Sir. I dealt first with Dr. King's pension, and only now am I referring to Mrs. King and relating it to Clause 2(2). I agree that I have dealt with Dr. King and with former Members, but I have not compared the difference in treatment between Members and their wives. Many hon. Members who have given a lifetime of service to the House have passed away under tragic circumstances. I am not now speaking about Mrs. King, I am 258 asking the Minister why he has quoted in aid the Ministerial Salaries and Members' Pensions Act when he has done and is doing nothing to assist Members' wives who are entitled to the same consideration as is being meted out to one individual whose name I will not mention.
Living near to me is a greatly respected lady, Mrs. Iain Macleod, and I know that she is having a very tough time indeed. I would ask the Minister to tell me what pension Mrs. Macleod is to get out of this Ministerial Salaries and Members' Pensions Act. I would like his advice on this matter. Will he give me an assurance that Mrs. Macleod will get as fair treatment as is being given by this Bill. There is also the case of Mr. George Jeger, who was the Member for Goole, who recently died. Will the widow receive equal treatment?
I do not see why we should give a Second Reading to a Bill which singles out two persons. As much as I respect and admire Horace King and all the excellent work he did during his time in office, I cannot in all conscience say that this treatment is fair, right and proper, unless I can be given assurances that these other anomalies are to be dealt with. Tied in with this will be the treatment afforded by the Treasury to hon. Members who have retired and to their widows.
I believe I am right in saying that the Treasury have been holding up a suggestion put up two years ago that Members of Parliament on retirement should get a 20 per cent. increase in pension and something extra for their widows. If that idea has been held up, I blame the Treasury. How can the Minister now come along and say "Let us hurry up this Bill, which we may get through on the nod", and yet at the same time not seek to do anything about these other thoroughly deserving Members of this House?
I turn to deal with a different point that is relevant here. I confess that I feel sorry at having to keep up the officials of the House over the last few weeks. [Interruption.] The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) appears to be making some remark. He should bear in mind that it is his Government that are responsible for bringing on this matter so late at night. I feel sorry for the officials 259 of the House. I would like to know whether those officials will be as fairly treated, and as well-treated, with regard to their pension rights. Unless the Minister can promise me that the messengers, the Library staff and the officials in this House—and their widows—will be treated as fairly, I must have second thoughts about giving support to this Bill.
There is another point tied up with this. I have paid tribute to the great demonstration in favour of my birthday on Sunday—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That is just what the hon. Gentleman ought to stop doing at once. He must get on to fresh arguments and not these parallels that we are getting. I am serious when I say to the hon. Gentleman that I shall ask him to resume his seat unless I am satisfied from now onwards. That is what I shall do under the powers that vest in me.

§ Mr. Lewis
I mentioned this only as an aside, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I did not develop it. I mentioned in an aside that at that demonstration were the police, and the police are in the Palace of Westminster, where they give loyal service. To my way of thinking, the Government prevent their getting adequate salaries. By refusing to give the police adequate salaries, the Government are thereby preventing the police getting adequate pensions, because police pensions are based on a percentage of their contributions based on earnings over their last period of service.
If I agree to give the Bill a Second Reading, can the Minister assure me that he will ensure that those officials of the House, including the police, will receive at least equal treatment in their pension rights?
One of the points put forward by the Minister in introducing the Bill, and I accept it, was that Dr. King gave long, useful and hard service to the House of Commons. No one can dispute that. I certainly do not. He also said that Dr. King gave five and a half years' good service as Mr. Speaker. That I also support. If, however, the Minister asks me, among others—although it appears that only my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and myself, other than the 260 Minister, are much interested—to give a Second Reading to the Bill on the ground, and rightly so, that Dr. King has given good service to the House and, therefore, he and his widow are entitled to this treatment, the same arguments that the hon. Gentleman is adducing for the Bill, if they can be brought forward and supported, must be used in favour of other persons in the House.
I am now going on to the officers and servants of the House who give good, loyal service. Therefore, the Treasury has an interest in this. I want to be able to say to my friends who are here that although I may have kept them here a little longer than I expected—through no fault of mine, but through the fault of the Government—at least I was able to have a say on their behalf, whether they be the police, the Serjeant's attendants, the Library staff or whoever they might be, all those who work hard, day in, day out, night in, night out. I have tried to speak on their behalf to see that they get an adequate pension.
I therefore ask the Minister whether he can give me an idea of what happens to other servants of the House. How do their pensions compare? Take some of the messengers. We have a wonderful service. We all know that the Serjeant at Arms' staff is excellent. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is nodding. The messenger staff have done an enormous job, especially during the postal strike caused by the Government, which caused us hardship, but the messenger staff helped us. I ask the Financial Secretary what kind of pension do these sort of people get. May I be assured that when I see these chappies outside I could chat with them and say, "This pension Bill will now go through, once it has passed through the Committee stage, but do not worry because the Financial Secretary will assure us that your pension will be based upon the same criteria; namely, if you have given long and faithful service, you will receive the equivalent of 65 per cent. of your salary for your last year or, on the basis of the Bill, a £900 a year pension on the last five and half years of your service"?
If the Minister could assure me that these people will get the same treatment —my hon. Friend nods—I should immediately give Second Reading support to 261 the Bill, because that would be fair and would show fair play.

§ Mr. Skinner
I am very interested in my hon. Friend's remarks regarding getting satisfactory treatment for the people who work in and around the precincts of the House. He mentioned that he would be prepared to give a Second Reading to the Bill on the basis that he had the kind of assurance contained in the Bill. I would remind him. I am afraid—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover must realise that he, too, must not repeat the same arguments as are being made by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). When he comes to speak, as I suspect he will when the hon. Member for West Ham, North sits down, he will have to introduce new arguments which have not been heard before, otherwise he will be out of order. The hon. Gentleman should not now, in an interjection, repeat what the hon. Member for West Ham, North has been saying.

§ Mr. Lewis
I am rather surprised, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This really surprises me. Am I to take it that, if my hon. Friend were to follow me and were to make his own speech, the fact that he happens to repeat points which I may or may not have dealt with at length would be tedious repetition? I would point out to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that almost every day of the week on every debate hon. Members opposite repeat and argue at length ad nauseam the same arguments, with different emphasis and different points on both sides, going backwards and forwards.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
May I put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest? The Standing Orders exactly direct me to do this. I am to prevent hon. Members from repeating the same arguments which others have used—Standing Order No. 22.

§ Mr. Lewis
Yes, Sir, the same arguments. I did not suggest the argument. I said that if my hon. Friend wanted to put points with different emphasis—emphasis meaning argument—different argument, different emphasis, the same points with different examples and explanations, surely my hon. Friend would be in order in arguing these points. Anyhow, the point does not arise, be 262 cause my hon. Friend is not trying to catch your eye at the moment. My hon. Friend wanted to interject. I did not hear his interjection. With respect, I do not know whether he was or was not at that stage even putting a point which I had or had not dealt with. Who knows? My hon. Friend may have a point to make which has not occurred to me. I think that I should give way to him to see whether he has a new point.

§ Mr. Skinner
It is a new point. It relates to my hon. Friend's remarks about the people who work in and around this building. My hon. Friend has said that, if he can get an assurance from the Financial Secretary—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That is not a new point. That is a point which has been made by the hon. Member for West Ham, North. The hon. Member for Bolsover said that he was raising a new point. What is his new point?

§ Mr. Skinner
My new point is that, if my hon. Friend gets the assurance that he seeks from the Financial Secretary about the people who work in and around this building, after what he said in his initial remarks about 1½ hours ago, can he tell us that he is not concerned about our 7½ million old-age pensioners? Certainly I am.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
All that has been said ad nauseam in the debate. The hon. Member for West Ham, North would be out of order if he attempted to reply to that interjection.

§ Mr. Lewis
I shall not attempt to reply to it, because there is an important point which I have not yet mentioned and with which I want to deal now. I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not pursue his point. Perhaps I might discuss it with him on another occasion.
I have been waiting some weeks for this debate, and today I have been waiting some hours for it to begin, and I have not yet been able to deal with all the points detailed in my notes. Among other matters, I have to tell hon. Members that, while I waited for the debate to begin, I decided to have a little refreshment. Unfontunately, however, those members of the restaurant staff who normally serve in the cafeteria were not 263 available. I make no complaint about that, though I could have raised the point that refreshments should be available. But, obviously, those who staff the cafeteria are entitled to a little time off, and I suppose that I picked on the period when they were having their refreshment. In any event, the cafeteria was closed. However, the point is relevant, because among those who give us loyal service are the members of the staff of the Refreshment Department, whom I have not mentioned.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. This will not do, either. These are the parallels of which I spoke earlier. The hon. Gentleman has advanced the argument about the servants of the House and the various other people who work here. He has put it to the Financial Secretary that all those who work in the House should be entitled to pensions which bear some resemblance to those proposed for Dr. and Mrs. King. We cannot have these parallels. This is almost the last time that I shall remind the hon. Gentleman that unless he raises new matters I shall have to ask him to resume his sat.

§ Mr. Lewis
With respect, they are not parallels. Every case that I have mentioned is absolutely different. Each one comes under different control and is subject to a different pension scheme—or lack of one. Hence, I am asking the Financial Secretary, where he is responsible, to compare the pension rights of Clerks of the House with those of the Library staff and those of the police, and I was going on to make the point that members of the staff of the Catering Department, as I understand it, do not come under the direct control of the Treasury. Hence, I was going on to develop the fact that we have a marvellous catering staff who, I believe, come under the control of the Services Committee. Therefore, I should have wished the Leader of the House to be present, because he is the Minister who should reply. The Financial Secretary laughs. It was the Leader of the House who was responsible for bringing this Measure on at this unearthly hour. Hence, the right hon. Gentleman should have been here, if only to keep me company.
Perhaps the Financial Secretary can answer this question. Is it or is it not the 264 case that the catering staff come under a different classification altogether and are employed by the Services Committee and, through the Services Committee, by the—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. This will not do at all. I shall now have to ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. I cannot hear him any longer.

§ Mr. Lewis
But—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Lewis
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. There is nothing more to be said.

§ Mr. Lewis
But why—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat while I am on my feet. Let it be clear in the record that I have ordered the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat for long and tedious repetition. If the hon. Gentleman seeks to get up now he will be out of order.

§ Mr. Lewis
I shall do that, Sir Robert, because I want to raise a point of order. May I ask why, when I have not mentioned a completely new fact—it is a fact—about the Catering Department, which I believe is under subsidy from the Treasury? I want to raise the question whether the Treasury is going to give an extra subsidy for the pensions of catering staff. This point has not been mentioned. I want to develop the necessity of raising this matter. Surely I am in order in saying that I have doubts about supporting the Second Reading of the Bill until such time as I receive an assurance from the Minister that the catering staff will be adequately dealt with concerning their pension rights.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made all those points and has put enough questions for the Minister to answer. I am satisfied that the hon. Gentleman is not going to take properly to heart my direction that he should not repeat himself. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman altogether for that. His efforts have been somewhat herculean tonight in speaking for two hours on what is, after all, a very small Bill indeed. No one can but admire the tenacity with which he has done it. 265 But is a fact that his arguments have become repetitious, and I feel bound to exercise my right and duty to ask him to resume his seat.

§ Mr. Lewis
In deference to your Ruling, Sir Robert, I shall resume my seat. However, I should like to discuss this matter with you at some more convenient and appropriate time.

§ Sir Brandon Rhys Williams (Kensington, South)
I hope that I can make my points in as many minutes as the hon. Members for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has taken hours.
First, I think that a little anecdote ought to be in the record. When I had the good fortune to enter the House I won the ballot for Private Members' Motions. I was, therefore, able to make my maiden speech on a subject of my own choice—transferability of pension rights. As I knew when my speech would come on and what it would be about, I thought it proper to call on Mr. Speaker, Dr. King, and he told me an anecdote about himself which he said I was not to attribute to him but could mention in my speech, which I did. Dr. King told me that he entered the House within a year or two of securing his pension under the scheme appropriate to his previous profession. He had served 28 years in that profession, but, the General Election coming when it did, he lost the whole of his rights. I think the House should know this.
Secondly, I should like to support the criticism of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) about the level of pension proposed in the Bill for Mrs. King should she survive Dr. King. It would be contrary to modern practice for a widow to be expected to accept a fall in her income to only a third of what her late husband's pension had been. I would have thought that two-thirds was more acceptable in the 1970s. However, if the Government feel that an Amendment to provide half-pay is an appropriate one to make at the Committtee stage I would not cavil at that.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
On a point of order. You called me to order, Sir Robert. In a Second Reading debate one cannot ask for an increase—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I cannot take a point of order on something upon which I have already adjudicated. If the hon. Member wishes to raise a new point of order, which has nothing to do the with his speech, that is a different matter.

§ Mr. Lewis
Surely you must hear me, Sir Robert, before you jump up and try to prevent my speaking. I resent your trying to stop me from speaking before you have heard me. I seek to raise a point of order concerning the remarks of the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams), and unless you hear me you cannot say whether I am out of order. The hon. Member was asking for an increase in the pension of Mrs. King. He suggested making it two-thirds. I suggest that that is out of order, because the Money Resolution precludes his suggesting a pension of two-thirds, or one half—much as I should like to see it. It is impossible to have an increase in the Money Resolution.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) is in order to the extent that he can argue that the pension is not enough, but he cannot suggest an Amendment to increase it.

§ Sir B. Rhys Williams
I conclude by telling my hon. Friend that I believe that the great majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree with me on this point. I hope that the Government will take the matter seriously, and make the necessary change in the Money Resolution.

§ Mr. Patrick Jenkin
I ought briefly to answer one or two of the relevant points raised by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). He asked why, if the abatement provision for Dr. King's pension is of long standing, the problem arose with "Shakes" Morrison, later Lord Dunrossil, in 1959. The reason is that the post of Governor-General of Australia was not one that fell within the corresponding provisions of Mr. Speaker Morrison's Pension Act, and it was as a voluntary abnegation of part of his pension rights, and in response to the feeling expressed in the House—to which the hon. Member referred—that Lord Dunrossil surrendered part of his pension.
267 Lord Kilmuir's post was not a post under the Crown, which meant that the abatement provisions did not apply to him, as they would not apply to the vast majority of public servants on retirement.
The hon. Member asked me about a number of other noble Lords, and whether they would use the Bill as an excuse. I cannot give any assurance in that respect. As for civil servants and local government officers, they, too, have abatement provisions which differ among themselves and also differ from those in the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Member will not wish me to give him details at this time of night.
On the question of Mrs. King's pension, the hon. Member asked whether the wives of Members of Parliament were subject to the same conditions and limitations. The answer is "Yes, under the same Act", although in respect of the wives the Act provides that the pension should be half that of the former Member.
The hon. Member asked why we were bringing this Bill forward with such expedition compared with other categories that he mentioned. I would point out that at present Dr. King has no pension at all. I was interested to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) in this context, in reference to Dr. King's teacher's pension. This was a factor private to himself and of which I was unaware. Dr. King has no pension at all, and until this Bill becomes an Act he will not have one.
As for Dr. King's age—as The Times House of Commons reference book will show, he will be rising 70 next May and is, therefore, by any standards entitled to draw a pension.
The hon. Member mentioned Mrs. Macleod. That is a matter on which I cannot comment. He asked whether the Treasury was holding up an increase in Members' pensions. Under the pensions increase legislation and analogous legislation, it is not considered appropriate to increase the pension of any retired public servant above the level of the pension currently enjoyed by those who retire now. Since hon. Members' pensions have not been raised, any pension 268 increase to former Members has not been able to be made. The question of pension increases to Members is one which will be referred to the pensions bodies, as promised by the Leader of the House on 4th December.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether attendants, police officers, refreshment staff, Library staff and officials can be assured that their pensions provisions are no less favourable than those in the Bill. I cannot give that assurance, for all those who are entitled to, and who so wish, are no doubt members of the appropriate schemes, statutory or otherwise, and will become entitled to pensions and to other benefits as appropriate when they retire.
With that explanation, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now see fit to allow the Bill to have a Second Reading.