§ 45. Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Prime Minister for what reason the Government has decided to attach a salary of £1,500 to the office of His Majesty's Paymaster-General?
§ The PRIME MINISTERA salary of £1,500 has been attached to the office of Paymaster-General while the holder of the office is performing specific duties in connection with the Local Government Bill.
§ Mr. MORRISONCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any precedent for this office having a salary of £1,500 a year attached to it?
§ The PRIME MINISTERYes, Sir. In 1916, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) held this office, a salary of £2,000 a year was attached to it.
§ Mr. MORRISONIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Labour Government this office was carried out without any charge at all, and that it only occupied a few minutes per week?
§ The PRIME MINISTERYes, Sir; that is quite true. Normally this is an unpaid office, but there is no reason why, when specific duties which would be performed by another office are attached to it, those duties should not be remunerated now, as they were in 1916.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYWas not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) a Member of the War Cabinet when he received that salary?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI do not remember whether he was or was not, but that has nothing to do with it. He was performing duties, and those duties were, very properly, remunerated. The Noble Lord who is performing these functions during the next few months will, similarly, be performing duties, and he will be, very properly, remunerated.
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD BENNIs there any reason for taking legislative work in these Chambers and paying for it at piecework prices?
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYIs there any comparison between the work of a Member of the War Cabinet during the War and the piloting of a Bill through the Upper House?
§ The PRIME MINISTERIt is not for me to compare values of work done.