HL Deb 10 July 1972 vol 333 cc77-89

6.58 p.m.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)

My Lords, I understand that there may be some questions put to me, and therefore I do not propose to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Jellicoe.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD GRENFELL in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Exchequer contributions]:

On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?

7.0 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON

If I may make this general remark, I thought it might be more convenient and effective that I should merely raise a number of points on particular clauses, and all the more so because the Government have, throughout this Bill, with the general support of the Opposition, taken the view that it was the "whole of Boyle or nothing". I accept the logic of this approach when we are dealing with pensions and such matters affecting Parliament. This is a sensible way to act. On the other hand, it has become apparent that there are certain anxieties here and there, and that in due course there may be an opportunity for the Boyle Committee to meet again (possibly sooner than might otherwise be anticipated). A number of Members of another place, recognising this, have taken the opportunity, as I hope to do, to put certain matters on the record so that they can be taken into account in the future.

I speak on Clause 5 once again in order to raise the position of the pre-1964 Members of Parliament. I accept from my own experience in the public service that it is very difficult to provide pensions for those who were not in a pension scheme. None the less, it is very striking, and is still a subject of some soreness, that people who enter now, or who were in the House of Commons since 1964, are able to draw a pension, whereas those who were there before that date are not able to draw a pension. Furthermore, the requirement in the Members' Pension Fund—which does not arise directly on this Bill—is still one of 10 years' qualification, whereas for future pensioners under this Bill four years is all the qualification that they need. It is a fact that in 1964 it was not open for many Members of Parliament to belong to other pension schemes, nor were they rich enough to make contributions through insurance arrangements or anything of that kind.

Nobody has tried harder than the noble Earl himself to meet and to give consideration to the anxieties of the pre-1964 pensioners. I only rise on this clause once again to register the very strong feeling on this matter—bearing in mind particularly that many of these pre-1964 Members of Parliament are no longer in Parliament unless they happen to be in the House of Lords, and therefore we alone are conscious of their problem. I would ask the noble Earl to bear this in mind. I would hope that it would be possible for him, when the Boyle Committee meets again, to take into account these remarks. This is one way of giving evidence to it. I gave my evidence. I would repeat yet again that I think that in many ways the Boyle Committee did a very good job and that we have greatly improved the position of Members of Parliament, as we should do ; but we have totally failed to do anything for the older people who left Parliament too early.

I raise these remarks on Clause 5 because here the payment of monies is provided for by Parliament as an annual Exchequer contribution. I am not clear whether there is any Exchequer contribution towards the Members' own Fund. Not having given notice to the noble Earl, he may or may not have the answer. I would hope that, if necessary, there can be contributions, so as to ensure that the position of those who are receiving these inevitably means-tested pensions—and I would not for one moment suggest that they are derisory, as some people have—is sustained. If there are annual or biennial reviews (indeed there will be) for the up-rating of pensions under the new scheme, I hope that there will be similar reviews under the scheme run by the trustees.

LORD BOOTHBY

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for raising this particular question. I naturally speak with a personal interest. but the fact remains that the pre-1964 Members of Parliament are being disgracefully treated. I was a Member of Parliament for 34 years without a break, and my pension is nil. I think that that is not fair. I do not think that any other country in the Western world, or even in the Communist world, would treat its ex-Members of Parliament in that particular way. I speak on behalf of a considerable number of people who were Members of Parliament with me and who are living in terms of considerable hardship, who have got nothing at all, but who would rather die than go through the humiliation of a means test to get a pension from the Fund. We in our day were grossly underpaid all the way through. I started at £400 a year in 1924, and our pay went up very slowly to about £1,000 a year ; but we had no allowances, no grants for secretaries, nothing comparable to what they have in the House of Commons to-day. So we really paid our meed, our tribute, and we were there for many years. I know of a number of ex-Members of Parliament from pre-1964 who were there for many years, who gave more than 10 years' service, and who got no pension of any kind at all. I simply say that I believe this to be wrong. They will not go to the Fund because they will not submit to a means test. I sympathise with them wholly on that. I would rather die in penury than do it myself.

I feel that, somehow or other, the ethics of this business have got out of line, have gone wrong, and that the country as a whole would not object at all if a modest pension as of right, without requiring a means test, were given to those Members of Parliament who served for over 10 years before 1964. If I had delayed accepting elevation—I think that is the right word—to this House for another three or four years, which I could easily have done, and had held my constituency, I should be entitled to a pension. It just seems to me that the position now is unfair and ethically wrong. I realise that the noble Earl the Leader of the House recognises this. I think that he feels in his heart that it is wrong, but that there are the difficulties over retrospective legislation. I do not believe that the country would resent that retrospective legislation at all ; I think that they would think it absolutely fair, especially in view of the very considerable and substantial increases in salaries and pensions which have recently been granted to the House of Commons and to the heads of the nationalised industries. I feel that this is something that is just not right, and I have expressed my opinion on it on more than one occasion, as I have my personal interest. It is negligible by comparison, but I have a slight personal interest and I must confess it. But I feel that this is just not right, and that is all I have to say.

7.10 p.m.

LORD JANNER

My Lords, may I add one word? I have not as yet intervened in the course of this debate, but having heard my noble friend Lord Shackleton and the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, I should like to say that I, too, started in Parliament when the salary was £400 a year. Some of us were fortunate enough to have a profession or some kind of interest which enabled us to live. I cannot imagine how on earth many of those who came into the House at that time—certainly those who had no other kind of occupation or other kind of income—were able to get along. But they did ; and they strove through a very hard time. I do not think the country as a whole realises what happened to people who were in the House in those days, or the dedicated and devoted service which was given by Members of Parliament, as indeed is being given to-day, without anything like sufficient remuneration to compensate them for what they were doing. It is a disgrace. I think we ought to face this fact. It is a disgrace that any Member who served his country before 1964 should be placed in the miserable and undignified position of having to carry on as best he can, in many cases on a very slight income. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves for not having rectified this position before.

I know that the noble Earl the Leader of the House is with us in this kind of sentiment but I appeal to him. Many of those who would benefit if something were done at the present time may not have much longer to live and we ought not to delay. We ought to take the earliest opportunity to rectify a position of this sort. I know a number of Members with whom I served in the House who are placed in a really difficult position, and my experience, too, is that they feel very miserable about any suggestion of undergoing a means test. They prefer not to do it and even to put up with the consequences of it. I honestly believe that the country as a whole, irrespective of Party—and I do not think the kind of argument would be raised which one hears so frequently when there is an increase of payments to Members—would be with the people who served, and served very well, in many instances for many years. I appeal to the House to take the earliest opportunity to try to get this very serious position remedied.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, I want to add a very few words on this subject. It used to be said in Victorian times that people practised a double morality. There was the morality which they put on with their best clothes when they went out, for the public to see—the morality they were proud of—and there was the morality of which they would be ashamed in public but which they exercised at home and in private. To-day I believe we have a double morality, but, curiously enough, in exactly the opposite way. We frequently behave in public or when we are representing a public body in a way which, as individuals, we should consider completely immoral. We treat our public servants to-day in a way which no individual would treat a personal servant who had given loyal service. We treat public figures in a way we should never treat friends. This is a new form and a curious form of double morality which we must get away from. I believe we must use every opportunity which presents itself to us, when we are in positions representing the Government, as the noble Earl is at present, or representing a public body, to ensure that that Government or public body acts in exactly the same way as we, as individuals, would in an analogous situation. For those reasons I support what noble Lords have already said on this matter.

7.16 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, we discussed this matter at some length on Second Reading, but having regard to the strongly held views of Members of your Lordships' House on this subject I do not for one second quarrel with the fact that we have rehearsed it now at Committee stage. I should like to explain once again, if I may, but as briefly as I can, why the Government have taken the line they have on this particular aspect of the Bill. There are two basic reasons. The first is that we should, in our view, be very careful about overriding the careful conclusions which now two distinguished, impartial and expert Committees who have been looking at the whole question of Parliamentary and Ministerial salaries and pensions have come to ; and secondly, we should also be careful about laying ourselves open to the accusation—and I do not wish to rest too much on this point but it certainly would be a possible accusation if we were to take the course recommended to this Committee by a number of noble Lords—that we legislators were prepared to treat ourselves better than the generality of good employers, because this would be a considerable breach in normal pensions practice. This we should recognise.

LORD BOOTHBY

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl for a moment to say that I had correspondence with Lord Boyle on this subject and he definitely said to me that he did not regard this particular question as within the remit of his Committee.

EARL JELLICOE

I must of course accept what the noble Lord has said, but I would remind him that this matter is specifically dealt with in paragraph 69 of the Boyle Committee's Report and again in paragraph 70, and since they have specifically looked at it, it is rather surprising to hear from the noble Lord that they felt themselves debarred from so doing. On Second Reading I in fact read out, I think, [...]the relevant[...]paragraphs. But I should like to say that the Lawrence Committee in 1963–64 and then the Boyle Committee have in fact considered with some considerable degree of care what should be done about the pre-1964 Members whom we are all probably very worried about. The Lawrence Committee's arguments are to be found in paragraph 76 of their Report, and without wishing to a make a Party point of this I must remind your Lordships that they were accepted by the then Government and were built into the existing 1965 Act. Normally this is the kind of issue which would be settled, once and for all, when a new scheme is set up.

However, the creation of the top salaries review body under Lord Boyle—and there were two other Members of your Lordships' House on it—and the referring of Parliamentary remuneration to that body, gave an opportunity, in these cases a very exceptional opportunity, for second thoughts. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, said it is my understanding (and this is borne out by the specific reference in their Report, in Paragraphs 69 and 70) that the Committee, quite deliberately, took this opportunity and, equally deliberately, concluded that they could not vary the conclusion of the Lawrence Committee. I suggest that at least at this stage we must rest on that. We must rest on it for the reasons I have given in the past: that otherwise we shall be back to the whole problem of singling out bits and pieces of impartial Committees' Reports for adoption or rejection ; and in that case it would be far better not to have a Committee. If we do that we shall then be putting Parliament in the invidious position of having to decide for itself the scale of remuneration and pension to which Parliamentarians should be entitled. That was a position which Parliament got itself out of ; and I would ask noble Lords to reflect very carefully before wittingly and deliberately putting back Parliament into that position.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has offered your Lordships, and perhaps Parliament as a whole, a way out. I am speaking from memory but I think it is the suggestion, implicit or explicit, in the Top Salaries Review Body Report that a body of this kind is expected to report once in a Parliament. Certainly the Government agreed with that. But there is no reason at all why, if there is a case for it, and if the Review Body feels that an interim report is called for, the Review Body should not make an interim report. While it would be foolish of me, speaking as it were without the book, to commit the Government to an interim review, speaking personally, I can see no reason why the Government should not assent to such a review if the Review Body, in its judgment, thought this desirable. I am certain that Lord Boyle's Committee would wish to pay very careful attention to the views expressed on this point, should they decide to make an interim review. One can take it, given the quality of the membership of the Review Body, that this will be the case. But purely to reinforce what does not need reinforcing I will undertake here and now to your Lordships that I will direct personally the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, to the strongly expressed feelings of this House on this point.

May I say that I entirely agree that it is right and proper that noble Lords who may be less directly interested in this matter—and it is easier to follow these sentiments in this House than in another place—given the strong feelings on this matter should raise it once again in this House. This, I believe, is possibly the best way forward at this time ; because I would counsel noble Lords strongly against trying to make piecemeal amendments to the Boyle Committee Report at this stage.

As to the particular point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I would add that there is an Exchequer contribution to the Members' fund: it is a matter of £22,000 a year. The actual contribution found necessary has been slightly under that in recent years ; but if the trustees receive the extra discretion for which they asked, and to which I referred on Second Reading, it is possible that the full amount, or something close to it, will be needed.

I hope that I have not sounded unsympathetic in my reply to noble Lords, because I am far from unsympathetic ; but I am certain that we are right to rest where we are at the present time. I note the strong, expressions of views of your Lordships—and not only the sentiments expressed but the feeling that if something is going to be done in this area it should be done without too long a delay.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 [Pensions of Members]:

On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD SHACKLETON

This is a small point. I must apologise to the Committee for raising that last matter in relation to Clause 5 when, clearly, I should have done so in relation to Clause 6. None the less, it gave rise to a useful debate. The point on Clause 7 is the rate of accrual of one-sixtieth. This point has been made on the grounds that no Member of Parliament is likely, or only exceptionally so, to have the length of service of an employee in a firm or a civil servant. The reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary in another place is that in future everybody will be in a pension scheme. The fact is that not everybody is in a pension scheme now. Here again I would ask that the Boyle Committee consider some arrangement whereby there can be a higher rate of accrual for those who are not in existing pension schemes. It is not easy very often to combine either pension schemes or "top hat" schemes, particularly when somebody becomes a Minister: then he is in a very peculiar position indeed. I had to abandon a "top hat" when I became a Minister ; but that matter arises on another clause.

What I am saying is that I think one-sixtieth is not very good. I am not complaining about this but judges can accumulate a full judicial pension (of 50 per cent., I think) after eighteen or twenty years' service. It would take considerably longer for a Member of Parliament to do that. So far as the argument that everybody is supposed to be in a pension scheme is concerned, we have not had an opportunity to discuss the Government pension scheme ; but in any case a lot of people are not in these schemes now. We are in this area building up more injustices for the future. The new entries will all be all right. Some of the post-1964 people have got something, but for the future it ought to accrue at a very much faster rate.

EARL JELLICOE

Here again I should like to say that if there is an interim report by the Review Body I think this is a point they might wish to look at in the light of what has been said in this House and in another place. Specifically, as I mentioned during the Second Reading, I myself feel they will almost certainly wish to look at the possibility of buying in extra pension rights. This is something which is now introduced into the Civil Service scheme. It was introduced at a time when it would not have been possible for the Boyle Committee to give full consideration to the possibility. Had the timing been different I think they might have wished to have done so. This is a matter which I think they may wish to look at if they decide to make an interim report.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 [Pensions for certain widowers]:

On Question, Whether Clause 14 shall stand part of the Bill?

7.30 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON

This objectionable little clause provides benefits to the spouses of women Members of the House of Commons only if they are incapacitated. I do not want to make anything more of this now, but being an anti-discriminator I think this is a bad clause. It has been criticised, and here again I should like Lord Boyle to note my opinion.

EARL JELLICOE

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for putting his point so moderately. I also happen to be an anti-discriminator, whether the discrimination is against the ladies or against the minority sex. But I would point out that what is written into this clause follows the normal practice of Public Service schemes. I am not necessarily defending what is the normal practice ; all I would suggest is that the assumptions underlying that practice are those which are derived from our whole socio-economic structure. It may be that that structure is wrong in this respect ; but if it is, I am not certain that the right way to start putting it right is through the medium of a Parliamentary pensions scheme. Whether there should be discrimination in this area is something which again I think should be looked at. I suspect that it might be better to look at it in a wider setting than a possible interim review of a Top Salaries Review Body.

LORD SHACKLETON

I accept that. The noble Earl has been doing well in the public service in this field, and I am encouraging this in perhaps a wider context.

EARL JELLICOE

The noble Earl also is doing well in other areas, and he will never tire of doing well.

LORD SHACKLETON

The noble Earl is following the path which his predecessors set for him.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clauses 15 to 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 [Refund of contributions to contributor]:

On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD SHACKLETON

Here again I should like to raise a small point. I confess that I cannot remember what Boyle said on this, and we are not sure whether we are bound by the pure dogma doctrine of the Boyle Committee. Clause 18 provides that the contributions of a Member of Parliament or an ex-Member of Parliament, can at his request be refunded, with interest, if he has not completed the appropriate service. I will not go into the details ; but why only his own contributions? If I am right on this, the Member of Parliament gets back his own contributions but not the Government's contributions—those of the notional employer.

Good pension schemes—admittedly, it may not always have happened in the early days—provide that a man can get back the employer's contributions as well as his own. I know many such schemes. In many private schemes there is a restriction on the amount a man can get back for short service, the idea being that if somebody leaves voluntarily, or is sacked for incompetence or something of that kind, he has his own money but not the firm's. But a Member of Parliament is surely in a rather different position. He does not usually give up his job voluntarily ; the job gives him up. I should be interested to know whether this provision ought not to include also the Government's contributions. There may be an answer. If not, here again it is something that Boyle could look at. I should not wish to try to amend the Bill.

EARL JELLICOE

I hope that up to now I have defended my pensions wicket with reasonable adequacy, but I must confess that on this occasion the noble Lord thas bowled me a googly. I am not absolutely certain of the ground here. I was surprised to hear the noble Lord say that in a number of good pension schemes there is provision, in analogous circumstances, for a refund of the employer's contributions. It is certainly my understanding that in the circumstances closest to those provided for in Clause 18 this would be contrary to normal pension practice. Again I think this is a point which might well be looked at. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is not proposing to amend Clause 18 at this stage. Not only do I suggest that this could be looked at, but also, in view of the noble Lord's interest in this matter, I should like to write to him about the point ; and if there are other noble Lords who are interested I will see that my fuller explanation is copied to them as well.

VISCOUNT AMORY

There is one point which arises from what was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton. My recollection of one or two schemes about which I know is that where it is provided that the employer's contribution shall also be repayable to the employee that has to be taken into consideration by the actuary and tends to put up the rate of contribution, because the scheme does not keep that money: it is not ploughed back into the scheme. In the case of people with relatively short service I think that actuaries are loth to adopt the practice. Where service is long I think there is a much stronger case for providing that the employer's contribution also is paid to the employee, but I doubt whether it would be desirable in a case where the average period of service was short.

LORD SHACKLETON

I think there is a good deal of force in what the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, has said. I have avoided speaking from my own experience—as one of the 9¾-year Members of Parliament I lose in all directions. It so happens that the one bit of pension I ever had in my life was from the B.B.C. before the war. I spent most of my time at the B.B.C. actually serving in the Air Force, and my pension accumulated. My recollection is that there were different periods in the joint contributory pension scheme. If a man had been there for two years he got all his own contributions and 25 per cent. of the employer's contributions ; and the same applied in proportion for a period of three years, and so on. I do not want to press this matter further, but I think that Members of Parliament are a rather special case. This is a matter which we shall probably need to look at in a wider context when we see the Government's Bill on the whole field of pensions. I do not want to press the noble Lord further on this matter. I am very grateful for the answers he has given.

EARL JELLICOE

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and to my noble friend Lord Amory for coming to my rescue.

VISCOUNT AMORY

Can my noble friend tell me whether I have inadvertently overlooked something? As a former Member of another place I had never thought of recovering my contributions in this connection. But since that is not a matter of public interest, perhaps my noble friend will tell me privately.

EARL JELLICOE

I shall be glad to have private communication with my noble friend on that matter.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without Amendments ; Report received.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I think we have reached a point when I should move that this House do adjourn during pleasure until 8 o'clock.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Silting was suspended at 7.40 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.