HL Deb 17 November 1964 vol 261 cc496-503

2.48 p.m.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD)

My Lords, I should like to inform the House that I hope to make a Statement on South Africa at about 3.30 p.m.

Meanwhile, I hope the House will allow me to make a Statement, which is quite a lengthy one, on Members' pay. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I repeated to-day the Statement made by my right honourable friend, the Prime Minister, yesterday in another place on the subject of the remuneration of Ministers and Members of Parliament. Normally it is not the practice for Statements to be repeated here on the day after they have been made in another place, but as the subject matter of this one so clearly concerns all Members of this House I think it only right that the House should have the information at first hand. This is the Statement that was made yesterday in the House of Commons—and I hope that copies have now reached the Leader of the Opposition aid the Leader of the Liberal Party here:

"The House will recall that on the 19th December, 1963, my predecessor announced that a Committee would be set up under Sir (Geoffrey Lawrence 'To review, and to recommend what changes are desirable in, the remuneration of Mr. Speaker, Ministers of the Crown and Members of the House of Commons and also the allowance for Members of the House of Lords, having regard to their responsibilities, to the place of Parliament in the national life and to the changes which have taken place, since the existing emoluments were fixed, in general standards of remuneration, and to the increases in expenses borne by Members of both Houses in the discharge of their duties' and to report to the Government which would be formed after the General Election. It was understood between the Parties that the Report would provide a basis for immediate action as soon as the Government and Parliament had had time to study the recommendations.

"As announced in the gracious Speech, we have received the Report of the Committee, A copy has been sent to the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and the text is being made available as a Command Paper to-day. I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking Sir Geoffrey Lawrence and his colleagues for the thoroughness with which they have carried out their task.

"The Government accept the recommendations of the Report as they affect the salaries and allowances of Members of both Houses, and will take appropriate steps to implement them. In outline these recommendations are: that the gross payments of Members of this House should be in- creased to £3,250 a year, inclusive of what the Committee called the exceptionally heavy expenses' which Members incur in the discharge of their duties and which the Committee put at £1,250 a year. The whole amount of course will be subject to tax, allowance only being made for proved Parliamentary expenses.

"We further accept the Committee's recommendation that the car allowance for Members of both Houses should be 4½d. a mile; and that the allowance for Members of the House of Lords should be 4½ guineas for each day's attendance. The Resolution of this House to give effect to increases in remuneration for Members and to provide for the increased attendance allowances for the other House will propose, as was envisaged last year, that they should be made retrospective to the first day of this Parliament.

"The Government also accept that there should be a contributory pensions scheme for Members of this House, requiring an annual contribution by each Member assessed by the Committee at £150, and are studying the Report's detailed recommendations.

"With regard to the salaries of Ministers and others, while the Government do not dissent from the Committee's approach to the problem of recognising suitably the responsibilities that fall on Ministers, many of whose salaries have remained unaltered since 1831, they do not consider that in present economic circumstances it would be appropriate for ministerial salaries to be raised to the level recommended by the Committee. They propose that the increases should be reduced to half the amount of the increases proposed by the Committee, and that the new salaries should not take effect until April 1, 1965. The decision to take only half of the recommended increases would apply right through the range of Ministers, and would affect equally the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

"The Government further consider that with the extremely onerous duties falling in any modern Parliament on the Opposition Chief Whip, he, too, should receive a salary from public funds.

"Legislation will be introduced in due course to deal with a pensions scheme for Members, revised ministerial salaries, the payment to the Opposition Chief Whip and changes in the remuneration of Mr. Speaker."

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, the Leader of the House for having repeated that Statement. Generally speaking, I would agree with him that it is a mistake to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place the day before, but I think that on this occasion it is right that your Lordships should have the opportunity of commenting on the proposals in so far as they affect this House.

I would join with the noble Earl in thanking Sir Geoffrey Lawrence and his colleagues for the work they have done. In so far as the proposals do affect your Lordships, I think that they will be generally welcome, and we are glad that the Government have accepted the recommendations of Sir Geoffrey Lawrence.

LORD REA

My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches agree that these proposals of Her Majesty's' Government should be approved, and we consider that this is a suitable and opportune time to bring them forward. Obviously, it is always an embarrassment for any interested body—in this instance, the British Parliament—to bring forward some measure which, while actually rectifying an injustice, does something of benefit to them. May I interpolate that that is exactly the position of the Liberal Party, who would like to see alterations in the electoral system, which would benefit them—but that is not the reason why we want them. The reason we want them is that they would be more honest and just.

I hope that it is not improper to say to the House (because I do not want to comment on what has been said about another place) that in this Paper there is reference to the Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships' House and to the Chief Opposition Whips in your Lordships' House and in the other place, and I hope that the Government may bear this in mind. I know that there is nothing in the recommendations of the Committee, but it is mentioned as something to be thought about. We know that the Leader of the Opposition in this House and the Chief Whip, of whichever of the two Parties they have been, have done very fine work.

I should like to mention the references to what is called in the Press, and I think in the Paper itself, the "attendance allowances" of noble Lords. I would point out that there is no such thing as an attendance allowance, and I think it desirable, if your Lordships would agree, that the public should be disabused of the impression, which is far too widely held, that Members of this House, apart from the Ministers of the Crown and the Lord Chairman of Committees, receive any attendance allowance whatever, or any other remuneration. The facility, of which only some of your Lordships take advantage, is the small allowance of up to, but not exceeding, three guineas a day for actual out-of-pocket expenses incurred in Parliamentary duties. This, of course, is limited to those who actually attend the House—it could not be given unless there was attendance—but it is in no way an attendance allowance, and the very considerable work which a large number of noble Lords give to the British Parliament is in all cases, rightly or wrongly, totally unremunerated.

LORD DILHORNE

My Lords, in view of the decision to increase the salary of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor with effect from April 1 next, may I ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the fact that the Supreme Court Judges in England, Scotland and Ireland have received no increase of salaries since 1954, whereas the lower justiciary have had three or four increases, and in view of the pledge given by the late Government to introduce this Session legislation to provide for increases in the remuneration of the Superior Judiciary, whether the Government intend to introduce such legislation and to secure that the salaries, not only of the Head of the Judiciary, but also of other members of the superior Judiciary, may be increased with effect from April 1 next?

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I should have thought, with respect, that that Question went pretty wide of the Lawrence Committee's Report; but any matter raised by the noble and learned Lord the ex-Lord Chancellor will obviously be given careful attention by the Government. Unless my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor wishes to say anything, that is all I would wish to say on this particular subject.

LORD DILHORNE

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether he will undertake to make a statement in the near future on this subject?

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

No, my Lords, that is something I cannot do, except in the sense that I am always ready to make a statement which may amount to saying that there is not very much to report; but I am not going to say that a decision will be reached in the near future. With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, I think that this is too far from the Rules of Order to enable the question to come within them.

The reception given to the Statement by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and by the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party has been kind and generous. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, raised the position of the possible remuneration of the Leader of the Opposition and of the Chief Whip in this House——

LORD REA

The official Opposition.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, it is rather like the use of the words "Roman Catholic". People understand after a time whom one is talking about, if one talks of "Catholics"; but I hope that I shall always satisfy all noble Lords in my use of phraseology. At any rate, the Leader of the official Opposition and the Chief Whip of the official Opposition undoubtedly have performed, and are performing, very onerous duties in this House, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, was kind enough to say. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was too altruistic to raise the issue himself, but now that it has been raised I would say clearly that it is under careful consideration. It certainly has not been forgotten. The Lawrence Committee did not feel able to make a pronouncement on this matter, but it is being considered now.

I do not think think that there are other questions that I have been called upon to answer this afternoon. I would just add that all that hat; been said, including the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Dilhorne, will be considered with much attention.

LORD JESSEL

My Lords, before we leave the subject, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House a small point in regard to the increase of car allowance to 4½d. per mile? How does that compare with the car allowance given to civil servants?

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I am afraid that I should need notice of that question. If the noble Lord can tell us this afternoon, of course, I shall be very grateful to him.

LORD JESSEL

My Lords, I can only tell the noble Earl what I have been told, but I am not quite sure that it is right.

LORD COLYTON

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether the Lawrence Committee, which recommended an increase of 1½ gns. in the so-called "attendance allowance" for Members of this House, and Her Majesty's Government, who have adopted this recommendation, are aware that those who attend regularly and speak here have to employ secretarial assistance in their work and have often to carry out a great deal of research and that not only are they well out of pocket on the existing 3 gns., but will still be on the 4½ gns. to which the amount has now been increased?

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I would rather not become involved in discussing the merits of the Lawrence Committee's Report, because I think that we all agree that we must regard their Report as much the most thorough there has ever been on this subject. I know that all sides of the House made representations to the Committee, and I can only assume that all this was carefully gone into by the Lawrence Committee.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

My Lords, whatever the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party may say, the attendance allowance is an attendance allowance, and now that it has been increased by 11 gns. noble Lords on this side of the House may perhaps take advantage of it 100 per cent., especially as they have to tighten their belts in many other ways. The crowding on some of these Benches will be terrible. Can the noble Earl arrange for some of to sit on the Benches among the Bishops?

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I am not quite sure that I appreciate the full implication of the last remark. But there seems to be room there, and no doubt the noble Earl, even when he has tightened his belt, will be welcome on that side. The noble Earl looks to be in remarkably good health up to the present, although I can see that there are many hard days coming.

I should like to deal with one point, though not at all conclusively, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. He does not like the expression "attendance allowance". If the noble Lord has some idea formulated on that particular point, perhaps he will let us know. I do not mean now necessarily, although we are glad to listen to his suggestions at any time.

LORD REA

My Lords, my main difficulty is that the allowance is not paid for attendance, but to refund what has been paid out of pocket. Noble Lords cannot get it unless they attend. It is not automatic. If the noble Earl gets his three guineas every time he comes, I am sure he will in his conscience justify it by his out-of-pocket expenses.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl and all noble Lords will justify the receipt of this attendance allowance. I am not sure that it is wrong to call it an attendance allowance. You might come here and entertain all the most important people in the world, but if you do not sit in the Chamber you will not get the allowance. You may be engaged in every kind of research, but again you will not get the allowance. So the phrase does not seem to me altogether inappropriate. But, as I have said, if the noble Lord will suggest something else, I will look at it.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Why not "expenses allowance".

THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, as I say, I am ready to look at any suggestion by the noble Lord, or from other noble Lords.