HL Deb 09 June 1988 vol 497 cc1555-7

Viscount Davidson rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th May be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the need for this order arises out of the link between the salaries of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. The independent Top Salaries Review Body recommended in 1983 that the Lord Chancellor should be paid more than the Lord Chief Justice in recognition of his position as the head of the judiciary and of his wider responsibilities. The House accepted the principle of the TSRB recommendation and has successively re-affirmed this with the approval of the Lord Chancellor's Salary Orders for the years 1984 to 1987.

An annual Lord Chancellor's Salary Order is necessary because the Lord Chief Justice's salary is set annually following the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body. This year the TSRB recommended a salary of £85,250 for the Lord Chief Justice—a 5.3 per cent. increase. The Government accepted this figure but decided to stage all the TSRB recommended salaries so that a 4.0 per cent. increase was paid from 1st April with the balance from 1st October. For the Lord Chief Justice this meant a salary of £84,240 from 1st April to 30th September, and £85,250 from 1st October.

The Lord Chancellor has a salary lead of £2,000. The House accepted this figure in 1983, and it has remained at that level since. Its real value has eroded since it was first established, but this of itself is not a valid reason for changing it. The lead exists because the Lord Chancellor is head of the judiciary and this makes it right that an appropriate differential should exist between him and the Lord Chief Justice. A lead of £2,000 fulfills such a requirement.

The order establishes the Lord Chancellor's salary at £86,240 for the period between the date when it comes into force—it cannot be made retrospective—and 30th September. From 1st October it is established at £87,250.

These salary levels derive directly from the TSRB report and embody a principle established five years ago and accepted by the House on five previous occasions. I hope that once again it will commend itself to the House this year. I commend the order to the House.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th May be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Davidson.)

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, the relationship between your Lordships' House and another place is obviously most harmonious, and happily so, since I observe that the order went through the other place "on the nod" on 26th May.

Under the provisions of the draft order, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will receive a gross raise per annum on a full year of some £4,250. Your Lordships will perhaps note that owing to the provisions of the last Budget, and in terms of a net pay increase, which, after all, the noble and learned Lord will be sufficiently human to regard as his extra reward in the matter, he will receive in a full year some £13,000 a year more than he received in what may euphemistically be termed take-home pay during the preceding full year.

Perhaps it may be of interest for your Lordships to recall that in 1979 the Lord Chancellor—at that time the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones—received some £20,000 a year gross. It is quite clear that matters have marched on considerably since that time. Whether that is due to the activities of the review body or to the rate of inflation is immaterial.

It is interesting to observe that the take-home pay of the Lord Chancellor in the next full year will be many times a multiple of the gross income received by some of the poorer sections of our community. That indicates that, in the march to a rather greater degree of fairness than exists at the present time, we still have a long way to go.

On the other hand, if one considers relativity it should perhaps be borne in mind that the new salary of the Lord Chancellor will be very much less than is at the moment fashionable among the leading captains of industry, who have been known to award themselves £1 million a year, or even more, as what are euphemistically called the nation's creators of wealth. We on this side of the House have not the slightest hesitation in saying that on a value for money basis—a term which I am sure is very close to the hearts of Her Majesty's Government—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor represents infinitely better value for money than some of those so-called captains of industry. For that reason we are very happy indeed to concur with the terms of the order.

The noble and learned Lord has always shown himself—as have his predecessors—most accessible to Members of your Lordships' House, and is always very co-operative in any inquiries that are made of him. He has a formidable task before him and he should be sustained in that task by remuneration of the kind proposed in the order.

There is a long way to go before all the subjects of Her Majesty are equal before the law. The recent review which is being considered by the noble and learned Lord marks some endeavour to ensure that the myth of all Her Majesty's subjects being equal before the law ultimately becomes a fact. That endeavour will need many labours by the noble and learned Lord in bringing to your Lordships' House those measures of which he is so conspicuously capable. Those measures are necessary in order to ensure that there is a greater measure of fairness and justice, not only in the administration of the law itself but also in its availability to those citizens who are unfortunately unable to amass the kind of resources that would enable them to combat cases brought by very large commercial enterprises or to bring cases against such enterprises, which are able to afford vast fees for legal advice and for the employment of counsel. We shall observe with interest and indeed give every possible encouragement to the noble and learned Lord in those endeavours, which we sincerely hope he will undertake.

We on this side of the House welcome the order laid before your Lordships. We welcome also its pensions implications, although we trust that, subject to the harsh arbitrament of political arithmetic, his retirement may be long deferred. We support the Motion.

Viscount Davidson

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for his reception of the order. I was interested to hear his accountant's view of various matters. I am sure that my noble and learned friend will also be most grateful.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.15 p.m.

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

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.25 to 8.15 p.m.]