HL Deb 27 July 1978 vol 395 cc985-8

5.10 p.m.

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart) rose to move, That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1978, laid before the House on 20th July, be approved

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order now before the House is designed to increase the pay of Ministers and Office Holders in this House and in another place by 10 per cent., in accordance with the pay policy guidelines for this year. The order is made under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. The operative date of the increase will be the date on which the order is made, which is expected to be Monday next, 31st July.

The revised salaries set out in the order are the maximum amounts payable and not necessarily the actual rates in payment, which, in the case of Ministers in another place who received increases to their Parliamentary pay in earlier pay rounds, may be lower than the promulgated rates. The governing Act contains no power to differentiate between the rates paid to Members of this House and those paid to Members of another place, but it does permit a lesser amount to be paid than those authorised. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1978, laid before the House on 20th July, he approved. —(Lord Peart.)

Lord CARRINGTON

My Lords, I suppose at the outset I should declare an interest, though a derisory interest, as the noble Lord will find some time after October. I rise to ask two questions and I apologise to the noble Lord for not having given him notice of them. I must confess that I had not done my homework soon enough. Can he explain why it is that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, if he is a member of the Cabinet, should get £228 more than his boss; why the Lord President of the Council gets paid a different sum of money from all the other Secretaries of State; and why a Minister of State, if he is in the Cabinet, gets £228 more than anybody else in the Cabinet except the Prime Minister? I draw the noble Lord's attention to Schedule 1 of the order. It may very well be a misprint but it seems extremely mysterious. No doubt there is a simple explanation which, if the noble Lord does not know now, will be sent to him from his advisers before I sit down.

The second question I should like to ask him is, supposing that the noble Lord is not the Lord Privy Seal, as he may very well not be—and indeed when I was Leader of the House once I was not Lord Privy Seal but Minister without Portfolio—or Lord President of the Council or Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, how does he get paid at all under this order? Again it seems rather mysterious. I think reinforcements are coming and the noble Lord will be able to answer these questions.

While the noble Lord is assimilating the information that his noble friend is giving him, perhaps I may just add that, although of course we shall pass this order and we only ask these questions for elucidation, it seems to me that not only are all these salaries fairly derisory in modern terms but also that it is ridiculous, in the context of the amount of work that your Lordships' House now does, that the Chief Whip in this House, the noble Baroness the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, should be paid rather less than half what the Chief Whip in the House of Commons gets paid, and that noble Lords opposite who are Lords in Waiting should be treated worse than almost anybody else. They cannot draw allowances, they cannot draw their attendance allowance and they are paid a pittance for the work they do. The time is very fast approaching when all of us on all sides of the House ought to march in to another place to say we are not going to put up with it any more.

Lord PEART

My Lords, I am grateful for the words of the noble Lord. I agree with him about salaries and especially about the salary of the Chief Whip and others who do such an important job in this House. But, as always, we tend to treat ourselves in a derisory way. I think this matter must be faced. We must have a change. That applies to all Governments and I am glad the noble Lord has raised it.

On the detailed questions, I have not done my homework either and I understand that the information is not yet available in the Box, so I shall have to write to the noble Lord. I am not trying to dodge this question. It is an important one and I very much appreciate what the noble Lord has said.

Lord CARRINGTON

My Lords, I wonder in point of fact whether it is a misprint and, if that figure is a misprint, it ought to be corrected.

Lord PEART

Yes, I am grateful to the noble Lord.

Lord WIGG

My Lords, does the Minister not think that it would be appropriate if he withdrew the motion now so that we can wait to see what will be the Government's attitude on the Parliamentary Pensions Bill. If they accept the Amendment which this House has put down in order to do justice, then it will be a very strong argument indeed, for, having done justice to all the Members of the House of Commons, the Government should also have public opinion backing them in doing justice to Ministers.

Lord PEART

My Lords, I hope that the House will not oppose the Motion. As my noble friend knows, I have very strongly defended the position of Members who are in another place and have been affected by proposals. There was a debate the other night in another place which the noble Lord will probably read about. I should like to get this order through. If there is a mistake, then it will have to be corrected, but that can be done quite easily.

On Question, Motion agreed to.