SUPPLEMENTARY LONDON ALLOWANCE (Hansard, 20 January 1972)

HL Deb 20 January 1972 vol 327 cc253-9 253

§ 7.3 p.m.

§ EARL JELLICOE rose to move, That as from January 1, 1972, Members of this House who are—

(a) holders of any Ministerial Office specified in Schedule 1 to the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act 1965 (as amended by or under any enactment, including any enactment passed after the date hereof) or specified in any corresponding provisions of an Act passed after the date hereof whereby (in substitution for that Act) provision is made for the payment of salaries to holders of Ministerial offices, or
(b) Leader of the Opposition or Chief Opposition Whip in this House, Or,
(c) Chairman of Committees of this House,

except any such Member who holds (whether as a Minister or otherwise) a paid office in respect of which an official residence is provided from public funds, 254 should receive a supplementary London allowance at the rate of £175 a year.

§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. As I assured your Lordships on December 6 when I repeated a Statement on the remuneration of Ministers and Members of Parliament, the Government have generally accepted the proposals embodied in the Report of Lord Boyle's Committee. This Motion gives effect to the view of the Committee that Ministers and paid office holders in both Houses of Parliament should receive a London supplement of £175 a year. The situation of Minister or paid office Members is of course substantially different from that of other Members of your Lordships' House in that their duties are bound to tie them to London to a very significant extent. The proposed supplement is related to the extra cost of living in London as compared with other parts of the country. Ministers and paid office holders, as your Lordships will be aware—and those of your Lordships who have been Ministers in this House will be acutely aware of this—are specifically debarred from claiming the expenses allowances which are available to other Members of this House to meet the expenses incurred in attending Sittings of this House or its Committees.

§ I trust that this House will welcome and agree to this Motion which makes provision for the payment of this London supplement to Ministers and office holders from January 1, 1972, in parallel with the London supplement which was agreed should he paid in similar circumstances in another place. I beg to move.

§ Moved, That as from January 1, 1972, Members of this House who are—

(a) holders of any Ministerial Office specified in Schedule 1 to the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act 1965 (as amended by or under any enactment, including any enactment passed after the date hereof) or specified in any corresponding provisions of an Act passed after the date hereof whereby (in substitution for that Act) provision is made for the payment of salaries to holders of Ministerial offices, or
(b) Leader of the Opposition or Chief Opposition Whip in this House, or,
(c) Chairman of Committees of this House,

except any such Member who holds (whether as a Minister or otherwise) a paid office in respect of which an official residence is provided from public funds, should receive a supplementary London allowance at the rate of £175 a year.—(Earl Jellicoe.)

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, I find this a rather embarrassing Motion. It is the first time I have found myself singled out in public for a possible pay increase, and I do not really want to make my remarks in regard to either the Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Chief Whip. My concern has always been with regard to Ministers, and particularly junior Ministers and Lords in Waiting. I think that perhaps the Captain of the Yeoman of the Guard has gone up in the world a little, but I still regard the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, as being very under-privileged in these matters.
There has been quite a lot of comment (not initiated by your Lordships. I am sure, and certainly not by me) in which contrasts have been made with another place, and although I would not grudge any Member of another place anything that he receives I am sure the noble Earl is aware of the position. Indeed I would congratulate him on this. He has striven very hard indeed, but sooner or later we shall have to face a number of issues with regard to this House, and I feel this particularly with regard to Ministers. It is open for me, as Leader of the Opposition, to take outside jobs, but it is not open to Ministers, and this applies with regard to certain payments in another place. However there is no doubt that the demands which are being made on your Lordships' House—and this applies both to Ministers and to a large number of Peers—mean that sooner or later (and I make no suggestions) we shall have to face both the question of the allowance, which has to be within the Inland Revenue rules, and more particularly the position of those who served so long in another place but not long enough to get the benefit of the improved pensions. That is not recognised in this particular Motion, but I feel that those of us who are in a position to do so should 256 speak for our colleagues, especially if we do not have an interest to declare in their problems but are conscious of them and recognise them—so much so that I hope the noble Earl, who, as the noble Lord. Lord Byers, once said, has been a good shop steward for this House, will receive representations. None the less, I have a very good shop steward on my side of the House, and before we pass this Motion I should like to suggest that rather than that I should develop this theme my noble friend Lord Beswick should also make a contribution in the context of this Motion.

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, I should like to respond to the invitation of my noble friend the "chief shop steward." We are here proposing to make further provision for a category of serving Parliamentarians. This, to my mind, only emphasises the point which was made by certain Peers when action on the Boyle recommendations was first announced. It is proposed now, in one way or another, to help all who serve or who recently have served, excepting individuals who in my view are the least well placed and in many ways are the most deserving, and I refer to those Members who served in another place prior to 1964. Many of them, like the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, who made an appeal when an announcement was made recently, entered Parliament at a time when the salary, so-called, was £400 a year, with no pension entitlement at all. I thought of those people when we were considering the very carefully contrived pension arrangements for other public servants, and it seems to me that we have there a category of people for whom we have not done sufficient. They get no pension, though, as I say, they may have served 10, 20, 30 years or even more.
It is said that they made no contribution to the present pension fund and therefore cannot expect a pension. But present Members of Parliament did not pay contributions for service prior to 1964; nevertheless, they are proposing that they should be treated as if they had contributed to that fund, and they are arranging—and we shall be invited to agree to the arrangement—that they shall be credited with up to 10 years' contributions. It seems to me a minor 257 scandal that those who are in a position to treat themselves should so treat themselves and yet deny it to others more deserving. There are, I know, some real cases of hardship. I am not asking the noble Earl to give me a definitive answer to-night—of course I am not; the matter does not arise directly out of the business we are considering. But knowing, as we all do, what humanity demands in these matters, I do ask whether he will give an assurance that before the relevant legislation reaches this House we shall have another opportunity to make representations on this particular point.

§ 7.12 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, I should like to congratulate the two noble shop stewards opposite on the brilliant orchestration of their efforts, and also to say that those on whose behalf they have spoken are very much in my mind as well. I think there are problems. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is doubtless aware that I recognise that there are problems and difficulties over the differentiation in practical terms between the remuneration of a junior Minister, say a Whip, in your Lordships' House as opposed to a Member of another place. We all know the reason for that. I am not challenging what has been done in another place or suggesting that it is in any way wrong, but I think it does point up a difficulty which is certainly worth looking at, not least in terms of the increasing demands which service in this House—be it as a Minister, senior or junior, or as a Member—is placing on the individual. I recognise that this is a problem which bears looking at. It may be that the expense allowance itself is something which should be reexamined.
I am well aware of the depth of feeling to which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick has given expression on the question of pensions. On one specific matter which was raised when we touched on this subject on December 6, I was able to give subsequently an assurance to certain noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyle and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that pensions of those Members of another place who are eligible will be linked with the Pensions (Increase) Bill and will be subject to that inflation-proofing which is in the Pensions 258 (Increase) Act. But there is another aspect of this subject which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has touched on. It would be quite wrong for me to hold out any substantive hopes at the present time that we shall be able to find a way of meeting this point, since the Government attach great importance to standing on Boyle and not going beyond, or further, or less far than, the Boyle recommendations themselves. Nevertheless, this area of pensions is one which is receiving further investigation. The legislation is not yet before us and not yet before another place. I will certainly give the noble Lord the assurance he has asked for: that I shall be very glad to receive representations from him or other noble Lords and there will be ample opportunity for discussion on this matter through the usual channels before that legislation comes to us. That assurance I gladly give.

§ On Question, Motion agreed to.

§ CONGREGATIONAL CHAPEL AND

TRUST PROPERTY DEPTFORD

BILL [H.L.]

§ COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]

§ DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL BILL[H.L.]

§ FRIENDS OF THE CLERGY

CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]

§ GLAMORGAN COUNTY COUNCIL

BILL [H.L.]

§ HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

BILL [H.L.]