Proceeding contribution from Lord Brabazon of Tara (Non-affiliated) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 2 May 2006. It occurred during Debate on select committee report on Speakership: House Committee Report.
Speakership: House Committee Report
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This report concerns the Lord Speaker’s salary and pension. On 31 January this year, the House approved the report of the second Select Committee on the Speakership. In paragraph 54 of the report, the committee recommended that the Senior Salaries Review Body should be invited to propose a salary and pension arrangement for the Lord Speaker which,"““would be appropriate vis-à-vis those of the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees””." The Senior Salaries Review Body considered the report of the Speakership Committee and the Hansard of the debate on it, as well as its previous recommendations concerning parliamentary salaries. It has proposed the following provisional arrangements, which it may revise during its next full review of parliamentary pay and allowances due in 2007 or after further reform of this House. First, it proposed an annual salary of £101,668, subject to annual uprating on 1 April, in line with the average movement of the mid-points of the senior Civil Service pay bands. This would give the Lord Speaker the same salary as a Cabinet Minister in the House of Lords. Secondly, it proposed a pension in accordance with the normal pension scheme provisions for Ministers, MPs and the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees in this House. In addition, the House Committee considered that the Lord Speaker should be entitled to claim the same expenses as other paid office holders in the House of Lords. In the past, this House has accepted the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body on expenses and salaries for Members. Several Members of the House Committee were concerned about the possible consequences of cherry picking between SSRB recommendations. However, as today’s Order Paper shows, not every Member of the House Committee agreed with the Senior Salaries Review Body’s recommendations in this case. Nevertheless, the committee recognised that the final decision rests with your Lordships. Finally, it may be helpful to say a word about the procedure to be followed on the three amendments tabled to my Motion. In a moment, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will move his Amendment No. 1, and the debate will then proceed in accordance with the outline speakers’ list. A decision will then be taken on Amendment No. 1. If Amendment No. 1 is agreed to, it will still be possible for Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 to be moved, but the Deputy Speaker will propose them in a different form so as to leave out the words last inserted. If Amendment No. 2 is agreed to, it would replace Amendment No. 1. Similarly, if either Amendment No. 1 or Amendment No. 2—or both—are agreed to, and Amendment No. 3 is agreed to, Amendment No. 3 would replace any earlier amendments. Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 152).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 681 c397-8
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Allowances Pay Workplace pensions Senior Salaries Review Body Lord Speaker
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 22:23:17 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_318966
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_318966
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_318966