§ 5.48 p.m.
§ Lord Bach rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this draft order provides for an amendment to the Attorney-General's salary. My noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, QC, was appointed as Attorney-General on 29th July last year. Previous occupants of the post have been Members of the House of Commons; my noble and learned friend is the first Peer to be appointed as Attorney-General.
§ The current salary for the Attorney-General applies only if the post-holder is a Member of the House of Commons. There is currently no equivalent rate of salary for the post in the Lords. This means that a new salary needs to be determined for the post of Attorney-General in this House.
1268§ The Senior Salaries Review Body recommended that the salary should have the same differential over the rate for a Cabinet Minister in the Lords that the salary for the post in the Commons has over the rate for a Cabinet Minister in the other place.
§ This order is effective backdated to 1st April 1999 and sets the salary at £87,585. Following the annual increase in ministerial salaries from 1st April this year, this results in a current salary of £90,125. I commend the order to the House.
§ Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)
§ Lord Brabazon of TaraMy Lords, I think that none of us will have any objection to the Attorney-General having such a salary. The noble Lord answered one of my questions when he said that the figure in paragraph 2 is able to be adjusted with the rate of inflation, whatever it happens to be.
The order that I have in front of me has no fewer than six manuscript amendments to it. As far as I can see, the order was laid on 7th June, which is quite a long time ago. Why has it taken so long? What has happened in the interim period that we do not have a proper order, one without manuscript amendments? The Minister said that the present Attorney-General was the first Attorney-General from the House of Lords. Is that in fact the case? Is there not a case of an Attorney-General coming from the House of Lords sometime in the 17th century?
§ Lord GoodhartMy Lords, unlike the Members of the other place, I believe that we in this House take great pleasure in the fact that the present Attorney-General is a Member of your Lordships' House.
Having said that, I was in two minds about what reaction to take in relation to this order. On the one hand, I was tempted to make a political gesture by proposing that the Attorney-General's salary should be reduced; on the other hand, as a member of the trade union of barristers, I was equally tempted to say that the salary was excessively low. I have decided to split the difference by supporting the order.
§ Lord BachMy Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, may be right; there may well have been an Attorney-General from this House in the 17th century. If that is so, I am fairly sure that that individual would not have been paid a salary and that such an order as I have moved today would not have been necessary. If I am wrong about that, I shall make sure that I inform the noble Lord.
As to the contortions of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on what line he should take on this issue, he has, in the end, after much thought, come to the right view.
On Question, Motion agreed to.