HL Deb 06 December 1971 vol 326 cc626-33

4.48 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I am sure the last thing your Lordships would wish is that I should stand for too long between your Lordships and my noble friend the Paymaster General. But I should like with permission, to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council on the Boyle Report. Mr. Whitelaw's Statement was as follows:

"On December 4 last I announced to the House the Government's intention with all-Party agreement to refer the question of Members' and Ministers' pay to the independent Review Body under the chairmanship of Lord Boyle.

"Accordingly that body was asked by the Government to consider what changes were desirable in the emoluments, allowances and expenses of Ministers of the Crown and Members of the House of Commons, including Mr. Speaker and other holders of remunerated offices in both Houses of Parliament, and in the relevant pension arrangements.

"The Review Body's Report has now been received and is being published to-day. In paragraph 121 of their Report the Review Body state: 'We have been conscious of the declared intention of the present Government to implement our proposals unless there are clear and compelling reasons for not doing so. We have regarded this as placing on us an added responsibility to keep our recommendations for increases and improvements to the absolute minimum which we consider to be necessary. It is in our view of the highest importance that these rcommendations both as they affect salaries and allowances should now be implemented as a whole and in full. Parenthetically, may I remind noble Lords that there are copies in the Printed Paper Office?

"The Government intends to respond to this strong expression of the Review Body by accepting the proposals of the Report, subject to further discussion with the Parties, and with the House authorities, regarding the detailed implementation of the proposed new allowances for Members.

"The Resolutions on Members' pay and allowances will be introduced to take effect from January 1, 1972. The legislation necessary to give effect to the changes in the salaries of Ministers and other office holders will be introduced shortly so as to permit of increases from April 1, 1972. That dealing with the new pension arrangements will be introduced as soon as possible."

That, my Lords, concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl. This is always a very delicate issue to discuss, and I should like in a moment to say something about allowances in the House of Lords. But perhaps I might first comment briefly after only a quick look at the Report. I am sure that no-one in this House would grudge Members of another place a proper reward, and from what I have seen I would not say that what is proposed for Members of Parliament is anything which could be called in any way excessive. But looking at the office holders, I am a little surprised. It appears that there will be special allowances for Members of Parliament and, as I understand, for Ministers in another place; but once again I think that the Lords in Waiting have not been treated generously. I doubt whether, even now, they are up to what the Lawrence Report recommended. though I have not been able to check on that.

Perhaps I may put one or two questions, speaking as one of the office holders mentioned—the lowest paid, except for my noble friend Lord Beswick, of all the office holders, and therefore not entitled to any of the House of Lords allowances. Indeed, I think it would have paid my noble friend Lord Beswick not to take his salary. I would ask the noble Earl to bear it in mind that there are a number of noble Lords who come here very faithfully and who, with the rising cost of living, are finding it increasingly difficult to come here at all. I feel very strongly about this matter, and I know that the noble Earl, with whom I have discussed it on a number of occasions, is personally sympathetic. May I ask him whether he will make a redoubled effort to overcome the indifference of Ministers to your Lordships' problems; and may I also ask whether any announcement is expected in the near future? If he cannot answer that question. will he at least indicate in some way, if this is possible—by a nod, or something like that—that he is really making a very big effort? I would stress that noble Lords do a great deal of unpaid work in your Lordships' House, and I do not think the present rate of allowances is enough to remunerate them—or, rather I should say, not to remunerate them but even to ensure that they are not out of pocket through being here.

May I also raise a point about pensions? Again I have not had a chance to study this Report, but the noble Earl will be aware that it includes proposals for improvements in pensions of Members of Parliament. I welcome those, but here again there are in your Lordships' House a number of former Members of Parliament who are still on the old rate. Ought they not to be brought up to the current rates, as has been done for the Civil Service?

LORD BYERS

My Lords, I should like to endorse what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said, but in doing so I should like, on behalf of my noble friends and myself, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, and his colleagues for the admirable and informative Report which they have produced. I would make only one point to the noble Earl the Leader of the House. There is a great deal of public ignorance about the salaries of Members of Parliament, about Ministers' salaries and about office holders' salaries. I am just wondering whether it would not be wiser to have a review at more frequent intervals than once every seven years. In the last seven years the cost of living has gone up 44 per cent., and this means that there will necessarily be—and I stress the word "necessarily"—a substantial increase for all those concerned. To the public, however, it will look as though the increase is excessive, which it certainly is not.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, perhaps I may comment briefly on the remarks which the two noble Lords have made, and thank them meanwhile for their general disposition towards the Statement which I repeated; and in so doing I would reciprocate what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said about the emoluments and allowances of Members of another place. This is a delicate matter, and it is ground on which I do not myself propose to be drawn, other than to say that I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has said about the informative nature of this Report. I think it would be a great mistake, not only for us inside your Lordships' House but above all for the general public, to prejudge this until they have digested the very careful and informative Report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, and his colleagues. I think we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, and his colleagues for a very thorough Report indeed.

My Lords, as for the particular points on which the two noble Lords asked me questions, may I briefly reply as follows? In the first place, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned the emoluments of Lords in Waiting. Under the Boyle Committee's recommendations, those will rise from£3,000 a year to£4,500 a year, which will be£500 more than the emoluments of other Government Whips in another place.

LORD SHACKLETON

But no allowances.

EARL JELLICOE

But those in the other place have the allowances. All I should like to say is that I am very well aware of the very special requirements which are imposed upon Lords in Waiting in your Lordships' House. I had the honour to give evidence to the Boyle Committee, and I certainly represented that aspect to them; but I think that here and in other respects we must abide by the recommendations of the Boyle Committee.

So far as pension arrangements are concerned, here again the matter is fairly complicated. It is gone into in some detail in paragraphs 114 to 116 of the Committee's Report, and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition may wish to glance at those paragraphs. At this stage I should like merely to draw his attention to the fact that Ministers in this place will in future, if these recommendations are given effect to, be included in the special pensions arrangements which are foreshadowed in the Boyle Committee's Report.

On the frequency of reviews, I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has said, and he will see that in the final paragraph of the Boyle Committee's Report they suggest that, in future, reviews should be at intervals of not more than four years. I think this is the effect of their recommendation; and, of course, like the other recommendations in the Report, it has been accepted in principle by Her Majesty's Government.

The question of Peers' expenses and allowances was not a matter which fell within the terms of reference of the Boyle Committee. The basis of the allowance was, of course, discussed by the Lawrence Committee; since then the point at issue has been the question of the rate. All I would say is that I am very conscious of the services rendered by noble Lords to Parliament. I am also very conscious of the sacrifices which those services call for from a great many noble Lords. I believe that it would be a great mistake for me to be drawn too far at this stage, and I hope that noble Lords will not wish to pursue this particular point now. I assure them that this matter is very much in my mind at the present time, and I have much in mind the representations which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has just made to me across the Floor of your Lordships' House.

LORD BESWICK

My Lords, I do not rise to say anything about the office which I hold and which my noble friend embarrassingly mentioned. I had not myself asked for anything, and do not particularly want anything. But I do rise to speak about a body of men and women who have not been met at all in this Report. Practically every Minister or Member has had representations made with regard to emoluments, expenses or allowances excepting those who served in the other place prior to 1964. They are not dealt with at all, and it seems to me that here is what I can only call a conspicuous piece of selfishness on the part of those who made representations. It is said in paragraph 53 that Members who retired before 1964 are not covered by the Member's pension scheme. Those who were still serving at that time and had prior service were accorded service credit to a maximum of 10 years. I should have thought that those who served up to 1964 would have been credited in the same way as those who had one day's or two days' service after 1964. All that they now have by way of pension is from what the Report delicately calls a quasi-benevolent fund. I think that the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal might well give some thought to this. Certain Members of another place who retired before 1964 serve in this House and some do not; but they are part of the Parliamentary fabric and I should think that the noble Earl might see fit to make some representations.

LORD BOOTHBY

My Lords, may I declare a personal interest and say that it is a fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, pointed out, that those who served in the House of Commons—some, including myself, for over 30 years before the War—get no pension at all and no consideration of any sort or kind. Some of them are pretty hard up. I approached my noble friend Lord Boyle on this subject. He said that it was not strictly within his terms of reference, although he had some sympathy. The question I want to ask the noble Earl is whether the Government, when they consider this Report and before finally deciding on action, will give consideration to those who gave many many years of service in another place before 1964 (some of whom are pretty hard up at the present time), who for reasons quite exceptional, possibly elevation to this House, had to leave that House before 1964 and who get no pension of any kind, however long they have served.

BARONESS BACON

My Lords, my noble friends on the Front Bench have called attention to two groups who appear to have been omitted from this Report; namely, the pre-1964 Members of the House of Commons and those Members of this House (and, probably some outside it) who already receive a pension. Would the noble Earl consider a third category which seems to have fallen between two stools: namely, those who served both before 1964 and after 1964, who are qualified but not yet old enough to receive a pension but who, so as far as I can see from a brief reading of the Report, will not qualify for the new arrangements because they apply only to those who are Members of the House of Commons now? Will the noble Earl make representations about that?

LORD SHINWELL

My Lords, would the noble Earl consider another category? I make no plea myself, because I do not happen to be hard up like the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. Is the noble Earl aware that I served for far longer than 30 years? I went to the House of Commons in 1922 and actually served 42½ years. Yet I receive the same pension as anybody with 10 years' service who qualified at the age of 65. May I ask whether the noble Earl is aware that those of us who served when expenses were£400 a year and who suffered privations over a long period of years think it about time that some of the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, were made retrospective?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, despite the privations that the noble Lord has suffered, he looks remarkably well. Nevertheless, I should like to say straight away that I have been impressed by the strength and sincerity of the arguments advanced by the last four speakers. I will see that their representations are brought not only to my own attention but to that of my right honourable friends who are intimately concerned with the matter. More than that I cannot undertake; but that I do undertake.