PRIVY SEAL OFFICE. (Hansard, 4 March 1919)

§ Mr. HOGGE

The House is entitled to an explanation. Is it a fact that on this Vote for the Privy Seal we are actually raising the salary of the Leader of the House? I have no objection to the right hon. Gentleman having his Ministerial salary raised to £5,000, but the ordinary remuneration for the office of Privy Seal is only £2,000, and the fact that this Estimate brings up the £2,000, which is the usual emolument of the office of Lord Privy Seal to £5,000, is surely an indication that the Government has some new scheme in prospect with regard to the whole question of Ministerial salaries. In the days of the War, I understand the Treasury Bench pooled their salaries and had all things in common in every way. I do not know what the exact sum was that they pooled, but there was an arrangement of that kind. Now, I understand, the old arrangement again obtains by which each Minister draws the salary attached to his office. The Lord Privy Seal is a sinecure. It is one of the offices which is usually given to some member of the Government whom the Government does not want to do any Departmental work, and who does the bulk of his work on the bench. I never like these proposals coming through in this way. I do not object to any Minister who is the head of any Department getting £5,000. I think he thoroughly deserves it, and he works very hard for his money, although 289 not nearly so hard as those who only draw the £400, but, on the other hand, there are many Ministers on that bench who do much more work than the Lord Privy Seal. Take one Minister in whom some of us are interested. The Secretary for Scotland is the most overburdened Minister in the Government, because he has twelve separate Departments to look after, and his remuneration is only £2,000. This is a proposal to give a Minister £5,000 for doing nothing but leading the House, whereas, one who does everything outside the House but lead it, gets very much less, and I think the Secretary to the Treasury, before he asks us to agree to this, might say whether this is the precursor of an arrangement which I hope will be made, whereby all these salaries will be equalised and there will not be these anomalies.

§ Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury)

It is quite true that is has been the custom for a good many years to pay the Lord Privy Seal a small salary, although if we go back to the eighteenth century his emoluments were fairly substantial. It is also true that, in accordance with an answer given by the Leader of the House to a question the other day, I understand the whole question of the remuneration of Ministers is being considered, but on this Vote it is simply the salary of the Leader of the House as such that is under consideration. The present Leader of the House held the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer until 13th January this year, and he was appointed Lord Privy Seal on 9thNovember. The salary he has been having as Chancellor of the Exchequer was £5,000 a year, and the salary voted by this House for members of the War Cabinet, who have not, as the modern phrase is, a portfolio, is also £5,000 a year, and it was felt, I think, with the utmost propriety, that that salary was a proper and fitting one to be paid to a Member who holds so highly responsible a position as that of Leader of the House. I am quite sure my hon. Friend recognises, as I do, that heavy and arduous as is the right hon. Gentleman's work in this House, his work outside is no less heavy and arduous.

Question put, and agreed to.