OPPOSITION LEADERS AND WHIPS (Hansard, 18 January 1972)

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 4, line 34, leave out '£9,500' and insert '£6,210'.

The Chairman
With this Amendment we are to take the following:

§ Mr. Lewis
I think that these Amendments emphasise the case that I have been making. The Leader of the House cannot, in this instance, use the argument about revaluation and reclassification because, with the exception of the extra Whips, there is no change in the situation. Salary increases are proposed, in one instance of 117 per cent., and in the other of 110 per cent., on basic salaries, plus the extra £1,750, plus a number of other ancillary benefits. I do not think that any Opposition appointment is worth a salary of this magnitude when I know that there are many additions to it. I do not think that taxpayers should be asked to meet this cost.
I have doubts about whether the taxpayer should be asked to meet the cost of the salaries of some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. There is nothing personal about this. They are fit and proper persons to do the job, but they are there only temporarily. There will come a time when the Leader of the House will be the Shadow Leader. I shall not say whether he will be Shadow 395 Leader, or Shadow Leader of the House. It may be either. I should prefer the right hon. Gentleman to be the Opposition Leader, or the Shadow Prime Minister. He would be a much better Opposition Leader than the present Prime Minister would. It would be better for the country and for the Tory Party if the Leader of the House became the Leader of the Opposition.

§ Mr. Swain
That is not saying much.

§ Mr. Lewis
That may be so, but he would be the better choice. I have to decide whether to allow him to have a salary which is higher than that received by some Ministers, plus a car, a chauffeur and running expenses, which together are worth between £2,000 and £3,000.
The present Patronage Secretary will come over and be on a salary of £10,500, which will be higher than that of the Government Deputy Chief Whip, higher than the other Whips and Parliamentary Secretaries and much higher than many Ministers. I want to emphasise that there is no limitation on their outside earnings as a result of their office, whereas there is on those in the Government who will then be my right hon. Friends.
I would say this on principle whether it is my hon. Friends or hon. Members opposite who are concerned. My objection is in principle, even when it is my right hon. and hon. Friends, whom I admire and support, and even when the present Leader of the House will be Leader of the Opposition and the Patronage Secretary will be Opposition Chief Whip.
I think that the Patronage Secretary —and I have nothing against him, although politically I do not think he is the best chap for the job—should get a rate which should be a little more than an M.P.'s salary—say about £1,000 or £2.000 above, knowing that they could get this outside. If it were to be said to me, "We agree that in this case they should be put on the same basis as all other office holders", then all other office holders are barred from receiving fees or earnings other than interest on shares or capital investment. They are not allowed, as Ministers, or Government office holders, to receive outside income. If that principle applies to Government office holders, it must surely apply to 396 those Opposition posts, or their salaries should be reduced to compensate for those earnings.
This was why Members of Parliament were told that they were not paid a full time salary—because some are only part time and do outside work and therefore their salaries are reduced because the job is not full time. But Ministers are full time and their salaries are full time. We have no control and will have no control over the Opposition office holders, whoever they are. We cannot say whether they should or should not do this, that or the other.
I can put down a Question, and occasionally do, asking the Leader of the House what he is doing in the next week in connection with his job or I can question whether he is doing anything wrong with his office or whether he is perhaps taking liberties. But I cannot do that when the right hon. Gentleman is in Opposition. I shall be paying him, as a taxpayer, £12,500 salary, and voting him that amount, plus his car and chauffeur, but I shall not be able in any way to check him, and I do not think that is right. I hope that the Leader of the House will tell me that this is a matter which can and should be looked at. I am not personalising this, as I said earlier when discussing the Prime Minister. It may be that this money could go into a charitable fund. Let it go to a fund for disabled officers of the House. All office holders should be treated properly and fairly so that we do not differentiate between persons who are one day in Government and the next day in Opposition.

§ Mr. Whitelaw
The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) began by saying that I could not pray in aid re-classification of the jobs concerned by Lord Boyle's Review Body. In this case that is exactly what I can do. The Review Body considered the position of the Leader of the Opposition, his responsibilities, the amount of work he had as Leader of Opposition in the House, his office expenditure, and his considerable responsibilities. Having examined all these matters, the Review Body came to the conclusion that the figure proposed in the Bill was the right salary for the Leader of the Opposition.
397 The Review Body then considered the position of the Opposition Chief Whip, and his responsibilities for the conduct of the business of the House. Having considered that and the considerable amount of time that he must spend in the building—absolutely full time, as I know from my six years experience of that post—the Review Body decided that this was the proper salary for the Opposition Chief Whip.
Similarly, after consideration the Review Body decided after consideration that it was right that two of the Opposition Whips, in recognition of the amount of work that they do in the House, should be paid. The salaries proposed in the Bill for these two Whips are in accordance with the recommendations of the Review Body.
This was the result of a re-classification and a re-consideration of the jabs and their responsibilities. Having considered these matters, the Review Body made its proposals. I believe that the proposals are right. I therefore commend them to the House. Once again, I fear that I cannot accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. Swain
Does the Leader of the House agree that in 1964, when the Labour Government implemented the Lawrence Committee's Report, in toto as regards the salaries of ordinary Members, the then Prime Minister decided in the interests of the economy to implement only 50 per cent. of the recommended increase for Ministers?

§ Mr. Whitelaw
These Amendments concern the Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition Chief Whip, and two other Opposition Whips and had nothing to do with Ministers.