HC Deb 24 May 1973 vol 857 cc825-34

11.26 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mills)

I beg to move, That the Salaries (Comptroller and Auditor-General and Others) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th May, be approved. We turn now to an entirely different matter, which makes for an interesting variety today. The purpose of this order is to authorise an increase in salary for the holders of three posts in Northern Ireland and to provide for the authorisation of any future increases.

The offices involved are those of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and the Commissioner for Complaints. One officer at present holds the posts of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Commissioner for Complaints. He is paid for the latter post only, and this will, of course, continue for as long as he holds both. But provision must be made for the possibility that the two positions will be held by separate individuals at some time in the future.

The functions of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration are identical to their opposite numbers here, while the rôle of the Commissioner for Complaints is to investigate complaints of maladministration by local or public bodies in Northern Ireland.

The increase proposed for all three posts is from £7,875 to £9,375 per annum with effect from 1st January 1972. This increase of £1,500, the new salaries and the effective date are all the same as those authorised and implemented last summer for permanent secretaries in the Northern Ireland Civil Service following acceptance by the Government of the Report of the Top Salaries Review Body—the Boyle Report. Also last summer, specific written assurances were given to the holders of the posts covered by this order that similar increases would be paid from the same date—January 1972—as soon as the necessary parliamentary approval was obtained.

But for the prorogation of the Northern Ireland Parliament, these increases would have been implemented about a year ago. In the event, however, they were delayed first by the unusual constitutional situation created by direct rule and the resulting pressures on parliamentary time, and later by a thorough review of the position which quite properly was undertaken in the light of the developing counter-inflation programme.

The payment of these increases to the two office-holders covered by the order is in full accordance with the terms of the counter-inflation policy introduced by the Government last autumn. The ruling paragraph is paragraph 13 of "A Programme for Controlling Inflation: The First Stage "(Cmnd. 5125), which deals with agreements existing on or before 6th November 1972. It says: In all cases where a settlement was reached before the standstill, and the operative date of the increase was on or before 6th November, the increase can be implemented. As hon. Members will know, wage awards covering a large number of workers have been implemented under that paragraph—notably the police and the local authority and electricity supply manual workers.

Although it was clear that the increases contained in this order were covered by paragraph 13 of Cmnd. 5125, we thought it right to defer legislation until the Government had been able to study the whole field of salaries and appointments which are affected, directly or consequentially, by the Top Salaries Review Body but for which increases had not been implemented before 6th November. This involved consideration of a very large array of public service jobs—some part-time, some full-time—throughout the United Kingdom.

The order also provides that future increases will be authorised by Order in Council made by the Governor of Northern Ireland after a draft has been approved by the Parliament of Northern Ireland. While the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972 has effect, the procedure will be by statutory rules made by the Secretary of State and subject to annulment by the Westminster Parliament. When the new arrangements contained in the Bill now before Parliament are in force, such an Order in Council would be made by the Secretary of State following a resolution by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)

Having listened to the Under-Secretary justifying the order, methinks that he protests too much.

The Government obviously feel very sensitive about this. It is a matter to which, in principle, we have no objection. The Government have a lot of explaining to do to the House, to the people of Northern Ireland and to the people of the United Kingdom. It is obviously right that these two distinguished servants of the State in Northern Ireland should not be penalised, nor should they be in receipt of wages which have been calculated at £625 less than the grade below them in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. They were caught by a number of accidents. To protect them, their salaries were part of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund, and then the Northern Ireland Parliament was prorogued before the necessary resolutions could be passed to implement the Boyle Report.

Before the Government could introduce resolutions into this House, they announced their freeze and then their £1 plus 4 per cent. I have argued too much about the anomalies and the unfairnesses created by the Government's decisions on the freeze and the £1 plus 4 per cent., all based upon the Government's gross mishandling of the economy—

Mr. Peter Hardy (Rother Valley)

Hear, hear.

Mr. McNamara

I am glad to have the support of the Solicitor-General in that view.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Michael Havers)

Oh?

Mr. McNamara

I thought I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman say "Hear, hear."

Mr. Peter Mills

It was the hon. Gentleman's colleague who did that.

Mr. McNamara

I beg the Solicitor-General's pardon. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) is a ventriloquist.

I have argued too much about what the Government's gross mishandling and unfairness have done to many workers to object to this matter being corrected. Nevertheless, an increase from £7,875 to £9,375 is an increase of £1,500 and, back. dated to 1st January 1972, it is a hefty increase to get in one's wage packet at the end of the month. It makes the £1 plus 4 per cent. a nonsense and it makes the Government's decision not to give the extra £1 to the Royal Ulster Constabulary when they gave it to the fire brigade and to prison officers very difficult to understand, particularly because of the dangerous and difficult rôle that the RUC has to play.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

And the shipyard workers.

Mr. McNamara

Yes. For the shipyard workers—I am coming on to them —the steelworkers, boilermakers at Harland and Wolff and every person whose wages are negotiated annually to see a person getting an increase of £1,500 a year is a very difficult case to argue.

It will, of course, be argued that these two men are a special case and were caught by a chapter of accidents, but certainly the hospital workers were a special case.

Mr. Peter Mills

They are not.

Mr. McNamara

The Minister says that they are not special cases. I thought that the whole burden of his argument was that they were caught by the prorogation of Stormont and the other matters he mentioned. We are not begrudging them their money but a number of points arise.

I refer to the Constitutional Bill which we have just read a Second time and to the Commissioners for Complaints and Administration. We are voting wages for the carrying out of a job which, while fine in concept, has not been so fine in practice. This is not because of any lack of zeal on the part of the Commissioner for Complaints but because of a fatal flaw in the legislation which said that he could look at individual cases of discrimination and not at patterns of discrimination. We hope that this will be remedied during the Committee proceedings on the Constitutional Bill.

We know also that the Commissioner's work was restricted because he could look only at public employment. We have had a statement from the Secretary of State about the committee to be set up. comprising representatives of trade unions and employers, aimed at preventing discrimination in private industry and commerce. We hope that when the time next comes for an increase to be voted for these officers their rôles in the public and private sectors—based upon the report of that committee—will be adjusted so as to eradicate what has been one of the blights in Northern Ireland.

The position of the Comptroller and Auditor-General appears to be anomalous, particularly in view of what the Minister of State said during the debate on the White Paper. The moneys voted to the Northern Ireland Assembly are to come straight from this House. All local taxes formerly levied under the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund are to be placed under our Consolidated Fund. We were told today that the comptroller is to report to us on the finances involved during the period of direct rule. Once the Assembly has been established he will report to that. This is a strange situation because the total moneys will be voted from this House, from our Consolidated Fund. It seems proper that the report should be made to this House. This may be a constitutional point with which the Government can deal in Committee.

I can see the need to have a proper accounting officer for the new Assembly. When it allocates resources, in so far as it is able to do so, those resources should be spent properly. Nevertheless the moneys will have been voted by this Parliament. When the procedures which previously existed—the Joint Exchequer Board and so on—are gone there will be an anomalous situation.

I understand that all the matters pending before Stormont was prorogued have been drawn to the attention of the Comptroller and that he has issued his report. I pay tribute to the work done by these distinguished servants of the Northern Ireland Parliament and the people. It is unfortunate that their legitimate wages increases should have been caught in this way. They have, perhaps, been more fortunate than most people in that they have not been restricted to £1 plus 4 per cent. I hope that they enjoy their extra £1,500 a year.

11.38 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

I am surprised that the Minister does not argue from the point, stated clearly in his brief, that these were special cases. If they were not I would not be standing here saying that the order should be agreed. I argue that these are special cases. I want to refer, however, to what has happened to the police, who are bearing the brunt of the action and who have been refused £1 a week, and to the position in the shipyards, where a productivity agreement has not been honoured by management, no matter what management may say. I am not arguing in favour of £1,500 a year for these gentlemen but the people we are talking about are entitled to it because they are a special case.

Mr. Peter Mills

These people were assured a long time ago that there would be an increase, not because of the work they did but because of the special problems in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I am glad that the Minister agrees that they are entitled to the money because they are outside the freeze. I know a little about this matter because I was the last Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in Northern Ireland. I regret that the Stormont Government have never been called to account for certain money that was spent. Before the Public Accounts Committee was disbanded it was investigating the leasing of a new property for the Ulster Office although many thousands of pounds had been lost in the payment of rent for offices that had been vacated and not been put on the market for sale. The matter was never gone into again because when the Public Accounts Committee was disbanded and its report was brought before this House there was no hon. Member representing a Northern Ireland constituency who had been on the Public Accounts Committee to say a word about it.

I agree that these men are eminent servants of the Crown, and it would be unfair for the House not to give its blessing to the order although the increase is a substantial one.

On 17th March 1972 the Review Body on Top Salaries recommended an interim increase of salaries for employees in senior grades—under-secretaries, permanent secretaries and the head of the Home Civil Service—to take effect from 1st January 1972. The Review Body said that it was in no doubt that the interim increases it recommended were the minmum required if confidence and fair treatment for the public service were to be maintained. Those recommendations were accepted and put into effect in June 1972 with restrospection to the beginning of the year.

The salaries of senior grades in the Northern Ireland Civil Service have always been fixed by reference to those of the senior grades in the Home Civil Service. New levels based on the Boyle recommendations agreed in July 1972—with the exception of the salaries of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Commissioner for Complaints and the Comptroller and Auditor-General—were paid with effect from 1st January 1972.

In July 1972 the officers I have listed were informed of the situation by the Second Secretary in charge of the Civil Service Management Division, Ministry of Finance for Northern Ireland, and they were assured that action would be taken to secure parliamentary approval to increased salaries. It should be remembered that if these gentlemen had remained in their positions, they would have got these increases. However, they have taken other appointments. But there is a special obligation here which the Government should honour. What is more, one of these gentlemen will be retiring at the end of this year. If this payment is not made his pension rights will be affected. If that happened, it would be totally unfair, as I am sure the House will agree.

Subject to parliamentary approval to the increased charge on the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland, therefore, there appears to be no legal bar to the payment of increased salaries to these two officers with effect from 1st January 1972. The ethics of the case make it indefensible for us not to give our blessing to the order.

I felt that it was only right to make these matters clear. Some of us have had some harsh things to say about other people, especially those who are known as the working classes, though why they should be called that I do not know, because I am sure these other people work too. But working class people need to know why representatives who are sent here by them are doing this tonight. I want my constituents and the remainder of the people of Northern Ireland to understand that we are doing something which is honourable and defensible and something which we are obliged to do if we are to be honest in regard to these two gentlemen.

I come now to the office of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) raised a vital point. We have to deal with two sections. There is first the money which will be given to the Assembly so that it can exercise the powers transferred to it. That is all that the Assembly will be able to inquire into, anyway. Members of the Assembly will not be able to inquire into the spending of money which is authorised from here. So it seems that the Comptroller and Auditor-General will have to be responsible to two Committees. A Committee of the Assembly will have to scrutinise how the Executive spends money on the transferred services. But then there is the money spent by this Government to consider. It may be that the Government will say that their own Comptroller and Auditor-General will look after that. But if that happens the duties of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in Northern Ireland will be reduced considerably.

I should like to hear what the Government see to be the future duties of the C & AG in Northern Ireland. It may be that my hon. Friend is not in a position to answer it now and that I am raising a constitutional issue which needs full investigation. I do not press him tonight for an answer. I prefer a considered answer. But this is an important point.

I know that the Under-Secretary is interested in Northern Ireland. He talked about "a shaft of light ", and was referring to the immediate conversion of a persecutor of the church. I happen to be a defender of the church, and I do not need converting in that sense. But if he was hoping that I was about to be converted to the policies of the Government on Northern Ireland, I can assure him that I am as militant as ever. We have had an exchange on these important matters which I hope will be helpful to the people of Northern Ireland so that they may know what they are doing.

It is evident from the composition of this House tonight that it is those hon. Members from Northern Ireland who are often referred to as being unreasonable who are present to make this vital contribution. Even the thunderous voice from the Alliance Party is absent. No trumpet has been blown for that party in this House tonight.

11.51 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills

I feel that I ought to answer one or two of the matters that have been raised, but I will certainly write and cover most of the other points, particularly the detailed point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).

Naturally, on the surface this matter looks a little difficult, but it is not. These people were promised these salaries on 19th July 1970—a long time ago. Indeed, the matter was considered by the Commission, there was a draft Order in Council in early 1972, and it was delayed only for the various reasons about which we know. I agree with my hon. Friend that we have a real duty to see that these salaries are given to these gentlemen.

I am grateful to both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for the tributes that they have paid to the work of these gentlemen. I think that is perfectly correct.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North asked from which fund these salaries would come. They will come out of the Consolidated Fund, Northern Ireland. That is clearly shown in Article 5 of the order.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North—again, I am grateful for his support—is right that if these people had remained in their original positions they would have had the new salaries. Therefore, that is an added reason why we should honour what we are trying to do.

I am not sure whether future duties are a matter for this Government, but I will certainly write to the hon. Member to clear up that point.

For all these reasons, I believe it is right to commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Salaries (Comptroller and Auditor-General and Others) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th May, be approved.