PAYMENT OF MEMBERS. (Hansard, 22 April 1920)

§ Mr. STANTON

Recently, at question time, I raised a question in regard to the payment of Members' salaries. The Leader of the House said that he did not think there was any general desire that the matter should be dealt with. That may be so, and I am delighted to discover that there are so many Members in the fortunate position that really a question of a few hundreds a year is nothing to them. I have reason, however, to believe that there are Members, however well-to- do, who still observe the principle of equity in regard to their less fortunate comrades in the House. It is not really a matter exactly how much is the salary, for everyone realises the position at a time like this with the Budget that has been brought forward, and in view of the cost of living and various other troubles 718 before us. But someone ought to speak out, and I am sure that I am merely voicing the opinion of other Members who have discovered, as I have long ago, the difficulty of remaining silent. Therefore, we dare, like Oliver, to ask for more I am not shy. My constituents, judging from the majority they were good enough—may I say wise enough—to give me—not because of my abilities—consider apparently that I am a fit and proper person to represent them here. They demand the right to live and to have a fair living wage so I dare claim the right to a fair living wage. As a Member of this House I have not got it. My train fares, hotel bills, and double house ex-penses—here and in my constituency—add to my burden, and must add to the burdens of many hon. Members. Apart from that, I wonder why we, who boast of being the Mother of Parliaments, the greatest House of Legislation in the world, should act differently to the Legislatures of France, Switzerland, even dirty Germany, all parts of America, and our Overseas Dominions. Members of Parliament should at least be worthy of their hire. We are trying to touch the conscience of the Government. Why should we pander to the lowest instincts of the mob because certain hon. Members well-to-do can afford to throw back their £400 a year? Some of them do that, and they can afford it, and they do it in a very generous spirit, because they are making money in other ways. I only wish I could afford to do the same thing. They still have an opportunity of doing this themselves, but why should they begrudge people like me, who have no other source of income, what I am asking for. It has been put to me that this £400 a year was never intended as payment of Members, but simply something towards expenses. Call a rose by any other name, we still know what it means. What does it mean? Some of the Sunday papers say, "£400 a year! "I wonder what the man who writes that is getting for his spare moments. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ask Churchill!"] When £400 a year meant £400 a year there was a chance of rubbing through on that by lying and scheming a bit, but to-day you cannot do; that. I think we have been about the most modest of the bunch up to now. I have had a number of letters twitting me in regard to my attitude towards the 719 fighting boys. I am sure those who believed in winning the War will not be unmindful of the claims of those boys, and I am willing to climb down even now in order to put those boys right.

If you are going to have cheap, shoddy labour you will have cheap and shoddy work done. People will not give their best attention to the work of this House when you know they cannot afford to come here. Men who cannot afford to pay their tram fares or hotel bills discover that they have to do something else to earn a livelihood. If a man gives the best part of his time to the affairs of the nation surely he is entitled to something for doing that. It is said that Ministers who get £5,000 a year may be capable of earning ten times as much in the commercial world, and that may be so. They may be making some sacrifice, but I think it comes with ill-grace from them when they say it is not the desire of the House to do what I am asking for. I think a Member of this House ought to have more than £400 a year, which now means less than £200 a year. If I were a collier in Wales I could, I think, with my knowledge of the work, make as much and be better off at the end of the year than I am now. I am merely submitting that I think it would be only fair if the Government would give this matter really honest consideration, and, if they want to economise, good heavens! there are any number of Departments where that can be done without trying to do it by profiteering at the expense of Members of this House. Some of us in the old days were told that if £400 a year were granted, it would be a temptation to everyone to try to get into the House of Commons. But the trade unions of the country are wealthy and powerful, and are determined to "run' their own Members. Some of their Members are already subsidised to the extent of more than one-half of what they are receiving from the Government, and they also get their railway fares. That is the case in numerous instances. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] It will, at any rate, be very shortly. I do know that a few hundreds a year have been added to the salaries of the representatives of certain trade unions, who also get their railway passes. If that is done the people who used to be nervous about 720 this being an abused privilege—well, they can leave it at that. So far as the trade unions are concerned they have the power and the money to run their own members. Why should we be forced to blackleg one another in this House? All my sympathies are with Labour. My work has been on the Labour side all my life. The only quarrel I had with my friends on the Labour Benches was during the War, and the only quarrel I have with them now is in regard to their Bolshevik tendencies. I claim that I am free and independent, and as long as I can afford to be so I shall so continue. But there comes a breaking point, and if I find I cannot so continue as a Member of Parliament, I shall go outside and discover other means of gaining a living, as other people have done. I am appealing to the Government to be fair with us. We know they have not done all they could in regard to economising. Some of us have worked for them during the War, have stood by them, have been jeered at and howled down by old-time comrades. We have suffered all these sacrifices and humiliations, and not even an O.B.E. has come our way. I feel it is only a question of initiating this movement to gain success. More than 150 Members have promised, irrespective of their position, to support me, and I shall rely on them to get justice done. We do not want to be blacklegging each other. We are worth as much as the Members of any other Parliament in the world, and I do not think we are asking too much. I have not stated any figure. I leave it to the conscience of those who are responsible to do that, but I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will find means to treat Members of this House on more generous terms, and make those terms at least equivalent to what was intended to be given when £400 a year was decided upon.

Lieut.-Colonel JOHN WARD

There are two ways of looking at this subject. A certain section of the House in the old days when this matter was first discussed considered that it was impossible for a man to receive a salary as M.P. without there being some corrupt influence so far as the Government was concerned. I came into this House an absolutely poor man, earning about 35s. per week. I stood on the floor within a few months, and a good friend, 721 who represents a powerful organisation, supported me, to defend the right of a Member working here for the general good of the community, to be in a position to keep himself in the ordinary standard of life which he ought to occupy. It was alleged that that would bring all sorts of corrupt influences to bear, but experience and common sense applied to this subject for a moment will illustrate that, if a man is poor, starving, and yet an elected representative of the country, there is infinitely more incentive to that man to be corrupt than if he had a decent stipend to make him independent of such considerations. It is all very well if this was an aristocratic Parliament. If it was understood that only those who can afford to keep themselves ought to be elected, then you would limit at once the right of selection for the constituencies. If this is to be merely a rich man's House, for those only who can keep themselves in the ordinary standard of comfort that they ought to occupy in a place like this, then the whole of the poor men are excluded immediately. Unless this House forces the question, unless those who are wealthy will support their poorer brethren, nothing will be done. It was not done 722 in the old days and they do not intend to do anything now, and it is a disgrace considering the rise in the cost of living, considering the general alteration in the standard of national and economic values that this War has produced that men should come to this House and legis late, giving the best of their services and their counsel for a wage less than I get for some of my own men. If you get a powerful organisation behind you that can make up your salary to £1,000 a year you are all right, but if you will not bow to that dictation a poor man has to go out of the House, and therefore I am going to raise my voice in defence of the Motion. So far as the country and this House are concerned, it should be absolutely free to choose any man it thinks capable of voicing its opinion in this House, being certain that mere social and economic position does not preclude him from giving his best services without any form of corruption.