§ Q1. Mr. Lubbockasked the Prime Minister if he will enter into discussions with the Opposition parties with a view to revising the method of remuneration of hon. Members, so that within the same total expenditure, payments vary with the productivity of Members, in accordance with Her Majesty's Government's policy for incomes.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)I have noted the suggestion with interest and shall be glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman about his ideas for measuring the productivity of the sector of the community he has in mind.
§ Mr. LubbockMay I wish the Prime Minister many happy returns of the day?
Is he aware of any other occupation in which the harder one works the less remuneration one receives? Is not this process the opposite of the rules laid down by the Government in their successive prices and incomes policy White Papers? Will he have discussions through the usual channels with Opposition leaders to set a good example to the 1164 community instead of going against the Government's own policy?
§ The Prime MinisterI thank the hon. Gentleman for the preamble to his question.
In reply to the rest of the question, the hon. Gentleman will recognise the difficulty of measuring productivity here; whether, for example, it might be by Divisions, in which case are organised abstentions to count; by the number of Questions put on the Order Paper, or respectively the number of those which are actually put in the House; by the attendance on Standing Committees. There are so many ways of doing it that it might be difficult. But if the hon. Gentleman, who has given a lot of thought to this, will let me have a memorandum I shall certainly study it.
Mr. J. T. PriceDespite the felicitations to the Prime Minister on his birthday, may I ask whether he would agree that this is a singularly inept and silly question at this time, and that, if the small group of hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal benches were to be paid for results over the last 30 years, they would get nothing at all?
§ The Prime MinisterI am not sure that I feel in the spirit to reply to that question in the manner in which it is put but, knowing my hon. Friend's record, I would have thought that on any test he would come out very well financially.
§ Mr. PeytonIs the Prime Minister aware that not all the wishes that are extended to him for happy returns cover the tenure of his present office? May I also ask him if he will refrain from applying the principle contained in this Question to Ministers, since one maxim that we have all recently learnt is, the busier the Minister the greater the menace?
§ The Prime MinisterI thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and for the spirit in which he put it. The latter part of his question, which must have taken a lot of working out, is one of the oldest jokes in our Parliamentary business. He will have noticed the figures I recently gave to the House about the productivity records for last year in relation to production and in relation to productivity. If he wants that test applied to Ministerial pay, I will be prepared to consider it.
§ Mr. DickensWill the Prime Minister confirm that, whereas real wages in this country have risen by 10 per cent. since October, 1964, the salary of Members of this House has fallen by £530 in real terms over the same period? Is he further aware that this has caused some hon. Members to look to sources outside Parliament to subsidise their incomes, sometimes in a very dubious way——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. A question must be brief, not a speech.
§ The Prime MinisterI cannot connect the second part of my hon. Friend's question with the first part, and I do not think that many hon. Members would wish that he had done so. In reply to the second part of the question, these are matters which have to be considered. In reply to the first part of the question, I have had representations on this point from my hon. Friend and others, none of whom will recognise more than he the difficulties of dealing with the problems which he has outlined.