HL Deb 10 April 1989 vol 506 cc76-8

7.21 p.m.

Lord Strathclyde rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord 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 reaffirmed that with the approval of the Lord Chancellor's Salary Orders for the years 1984 to 1988.

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 £89,500 for the Lord Chief Justice—a 5 per cent. increase. The Government accepted that that figure be paid from the due date of 1st April 1989.

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

The order establishes the Lord Chancellor's salary at £91,500 from the day it comes into force—it cannot be made retrospective. The salary level derives directly from the TSRB report and embodies a principle established six years ago and accepted by the House on six 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 14th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Strathclyde.)

7.24 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, we on this side of the House not only have no objection to the order, but certainly approve both what it says and the very fair manner in which the Minister has indicated to the House that there is an assumption written into the proceedings and arrangements which makes it automatic for the order to come before the House.

I certainly concur with the Minister that, in the circumstances, this is a wholly appropriate and reasonable proposal, not least in respect of the manner in which one seeks, in a difficult area—if not to indicate a pecking order or a hierarchy—to ascribe to a post a salary that is felt to be reasonable and appropriate. Certainly, we on this side of the House will, as we have done on the previous occasions, not only raise no objection to the order, but welcome, support and approve it.

7.25 p.m.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe

My Lords, I recognise that the order relates to the position and not the personality of the person who occupies that distinguished post. But, as regards the personality, after reading Friday's debate, I certainly believe that the position is occupied with great distinction at the moment and that further encourages me to support the Motion before the House.

7.26 p.m.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe

My Lords, I should like to follow what the noble Lord has just said and support what has been said from both the Front Benches, because, in this particular case, not only the post but the recipient merits the money. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has shown great courage in tackling a matter upon which most of us who would hesitate to go into a detailed legal debate nevertheless support in principle what he is trying to do. We also feel that, in our support, we are buttressed by very many people in this country who are deeply uneasy about the existing situation, but do not have the specialist knowledge to underpin their views.

I should also like to say that I sympathise greatly with the noble and learned Lord with regard to the debate that took place last Friday. I am sure that there are many other interests in this country which would like to be as well represented in this House as that particular interest was. I am sure that we could, for example, have an interesting debate here on the Second Reading of the Dock Work Bill if there were two or three dozen dockers scattered around the Benches on either side of the House.

7.27 p.m.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, perhaps I may respond briefly and thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for his words; I am grateful for them and am glad that he welcomes the order. I should also thank the noble Lords, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, for their words. I am sure that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be greatly encouraged by their words concerning Friday's debate, in which I too believe that he did a remarkably good job. I was here at a quarter to eleven on Friday night and was amazed by his stamina throughout the day.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.20 p.m.

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

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.28 until 8.20 p.m.]