HC Deb 29 April 1937 vol 323 cc597-613

7.1 p.m.

Sir A. Sinclair

I beg to move, in page 3, line 33, to leave out "ten" and to insert "seven."

This Amendment provides that the Prime Minister's salary should be £;7,000 a year instead of £10,000 as proposed in the Bill. In making this proposal I base myself on the expression of opinion of this House and of its select committees. There is general agreement in all parts of the House that the Prime Minister of this great country should receive an adequate and a generous salary. We do not want to be paltry or niggardly about the salary we pay to him. Ministers, in supporting the proposals of their Bill, have frequently based themselves on a Resolution which this House passed last year and on the reports of the Select Committees of 1920 and 1930. In the Resolution which the House passed in the last Parliament there was no suggestion that the Prime Minister should be paid a salary of £10,000 a year as is proposed, and should in addition receive as Leader of the Opposition, if he passed into opposition, a salary of £2,000, or, if he passed out of public life altogether, a pension of £2,000 a year. Such provision for the Prime Minister is on a scale far more lavish than was ever conceived by the House of Commons when it discussed the Resolution last year, or by the Select Committees of 1920 and 1930.

Mr. McKie

They recommended £8, 000.

Sir A. Sinclair

The hon. Member is referring to the committee in 1920.

Mr. McKie

1930.

Sir A. Sinclair

The hon. Member is at fault. It was the Select Committee of 1920 which recommended £8,000 a year. But that committee recommended no salary for the Leader of the Opposition, and therefore when the Prime Minister ceased to be Prime Minister and passed over to the Opposition side he would have lost his salary altogether. The committee recommended no pension to the Prime Minister when he retired from public life. Quite frankly, I do not approve of a salary for the Leader of the Opposition, but I do approve the pension. But if we are to have a pension for the Prime Minister I do not think that we ought to go quite as far as the recommendations of the 1920 committee, because that committee did not provide for the advantage of a pension. I say, let him have the advantage of a pension, but if he has that advantage, a salary of £7,000 a year should be adequate.

I come to the Select Committee of 1930, which met and reported in conditions far more like those in which we live to-day than were the conditions of 1920, and they recommended that the salary of the Prime Minister should be increased from £5,000 to £7,000 a year. But, indeed, they did not recommend any salary for the Leader of the Opposition, and they did not recommend any pension. So that the proposal which I am making to-day is more generous than the suggestion made by the 1930 Committee, if you take into account the pension and the payment to the Leader of the Opposition, it is at least as generous as what any of the speakers who supported the Motion in the last Parliament suggested. There is no authority either in these two reports or in the Resolution of the House last year for paying the Prime Minister a salary as lavish as £10,000 in addition to his pension of £2,000. Therefore, I move that the salary should be £7,000 a year.

7.8 p.m.

Sir J. Simon

I must say a word in answer to what has been said by my right hon. Friend opposite, but I hope that we may be able to dispense with this matter, which affects the most important public servant in the land, without a very long discussion. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that the Select Committee of 1930 suggested that there should be immediately an increase to the figure of £7,000. I think it would be fair to say that the Committee of 1930 laid a good deal of emphasis on the fact that they felt the times were particularly difficult, and I do not think that it would be unfair to infer that if the matter had been considered in perhaps a more abstract way they would not necessarily have suggested that figure. At any rate, the earlier Committee in 1920 did in fact recommend a figure of £8,000, and there again it is right to say that that has been regarded as the minimum. When we come to the view of the House, the Resolution did not give authority for the lower of these two figures. I think the Resolution referred to the recommendations of the Committee of 1920, but we need not argue that very much.

If hon. Members will remind themselves of what was said on this subject—it is necessarily rather a delicate subject; not a subject that everyone will want to canvass in great detail—by the present Prime Minister on the Second Reading, when he spoke in very moderate tones, I do not think the Committee will be disposed to think that the figure we have suggested is too large. Very few people are able to speak here with anything like first-hand or inside information. We know that the house in which the Prime Minister lives is a burdensome house in itself. We know what the figure proposed does mean when it has suffered —and it ought to suffer—taxation. This proposal is put forward with the authority of the Government. Of course, no one will desire to allow for unnecessary extravagance. I have heard the observation made many times in these discussions that it was an outrage that the Prime Minister should receive less than the Lord Chancellor. When this Bill has passed, the Lord Chancellor will receive £10,000 and, though it is not a good argument to say that because one official is paid too much another should be paid too much as well, there is nothing in itself which appears to be other than reasonable and proper in suggesting that the holder of this high office, with its tremendous responsibilities, should receive the salary we have proposed. For my part, I entirely decline to judge this particular question by discussing whether or not the ex-Prime Minister should have a pension. The figure we are mentioning is not mentioned as a figure in order to provide for the Prime Minister's later life. It is a figure designed for while he holds the office, and the question of whether a man who has been Prime Minister should receive a pension is quite separate. So is the question of whether the Leader of the Opposition should receive a salary, because there will be cases where an ex-Prime Minister will be Leader of the Opposition. Whether Members of Parliament should enjoy a scheme of pensions when they cease to be Members of Parliament and such questions should be dealt with quite separately.

7.13 p.m.

Captain Cazalet

I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not move this Amendment, because if he has examined the evidence regarding the expense to which Prime Ministers are put, particularly in regard to 10, Downing Street, he must come to the decision, purely on £ s. d., that a net figure of somewhere between £6,000 and £7,000 is not a sum which will enable any Prime Minister to occupy Downing Street for a period of years and fulfil the social and other functions which the Prime Minister of this country must fulfil. It is not a sum which will allow him to leave Downing Street with a very large surplus' if any surplus at all. It may be that he should not have such a large house and should not entertain so much, but these are matters which are, perhaps, not germane to the argument. But there is the house and he is Prime Minister, and has to dispense a good deal of entertainment. The Prime Minister laid stress on the expense of 10, Downing Street. If you cut down the figure it only means that some future Prime Minister will have to go to the Office of Works and try to get certain expenses—almost personal expenses—which should fall on his own purse. If the right hon. Gentleman will examine that evidence he will see that this is not a figure which will allow any Prime Minister to live there in reasonable comfort and retire from his post with a very large surplus.

Sir A. Sinclair

I have not examined the evidence, but I have read the report of colleagues of mine who have examined it. They came to certain conclusions which are recorded ion the two reports of 1920 and 1930. Those conclusions do not bear out the argument which the hon. And gallant Gentleman has addressed to the Committee.

7.16 p.m.

Colonel Gretton

Although I dislike much of this Bill, I think that this proposal is one that should receive the support of the Committee, and is actually in the public interest. It is notorious that many Prime Ministers in our history, after having filled the first office of State and done great service in their time, have left office impoverished men. That is not right or in accordance with the spirit of the times. I am not alluding to any Member of the House, in the remarks I have made, but those facts are notorious. The Committee should remember that the salaries paid to Ministers are subject to Income Tax and, in the case of £10,000 a year, to Surtax, so that the actual amount received is considerably less than the nominal amount. Everyone will agree that the first officer of State ought to be able to perform his office without personal financial anxiety, and in view of the general scale of expenditure, and of the evidence which was given before the Select Committee in 1930, I have no hesitation in supporting the proposal in the Bill.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. G. Hardie

I should like to ask why the Home Secretary keeps repeating the statement that the sum of £10,000 a year is reduced by so much Income Tax, because if anyone accepts a post outside at £10,000 a year, he has to face the payment of Income Tax. The Home Secretary repeats that a Cabinet Minister's salary is only worth so much after Income Tax has been taken off, as if there were cases outside the House where that would not happen. Why should anyone in the employ of the Government be given an additional amount to make up for Income Tax? We continully have the question raised whether or not those enjoying the salary of office spend the money they get. There is always a dirty suspicion about it. Why do the Government not say that in order to avoid any more suspicions resting on those who receive Ministers' salaries, they will pay the salary less Income Tax and with all expenses paid.

The Deputy-Chairman

I would remind the hon. Gentleman of the existence of Standing Order No. 18. He is now repeating for the third time an argument I have heard him use.

Mr. Hardie

Not on this particular point.

The Deputy-Chairman

That is immaterial. The hon. Member has twice before put that argument. He must not do so a third time.

Mr. Hardie

I understood that the Rules of the House were that you must not repeat yourself in the same Debate.

The Deputy-Chairman

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the Rules.

Mr. Hardie

I will conclude by saying that since there are doubts whether these men spend the money or not the Government should make the thing clean, and cut out all those things that raise doubts.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Maxton

I support the Amendment, although I think that the figure mentioned is much too high. I intervene in the Debate because of the speech made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), who usually sits alongside me, in which he talked about Prime Ministers leaving office in a state of poverty. I cannot remember, looking back over the Prime Ministers who have come within my ken, one who has ended his life in anything that I recognise by the name of poverty. I can think back over a good number. There are those who are still in this House. There is the Lord President of the Council. I can remember, in his early days in politics, when he lived in circumstances that could be described as genteel poverty, but not in these latter years. I have never seen the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Borough (Mr. Lloyd George) in any condition that moved me to compassion —and I am always sympathetic towards the poor. I have recollections of Mr. Bonar Law, of Lord Balfour, of Lord Rosebery, of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and of Lord Asquith. I cannot think of one of them who ended his life in abject poverty, or in such a position that he could not give his family opportunities which they would never have got had their father not held this particular post.

To talk about finishing office in an impoverished condition is so much humbug and nonsense. I never experienced the hospitality of 10, Downing Street. In my 15 years membership of the House I have called at 10, Downing Street twice, with unemployed deputations, and both times we were turned off the doorstep by the butler. That is my experience of the hospitality of 10. Downing Street. It may be that on £5,000 a year the hospitality extended at 10, Downing Street has been of a simpler and less lavish kind than it might be, but it is all to the good that the head of the State should set an example of decent simplicity and kindliness, of homely hospitality rather than of gorgeous displays of lavish feasting and winebibbing. It is all to the good that the head of the State should adopt even a severe simplicity in his ways of life and in his hospitality. I am against the proposal to make a substantial increase. The figure could quite well have remained where it was. I can remember that when the present holder of the office first became Prime Minister he described himself, not as the leader or the chief, but as Primus inter pares—first among equals. I think that that might have been maintained so far as the financial position is concerned, and that there should have been an equality right through the Cabinet. An equality even on a lower level than 5,000 a year would have been adequate to meet the reasonable needs of life and the maintenance of the so-called dignities of public office. Since the Government are proposing a doubling of the emoluments, and since the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) has moved a substantial reduction, I will certainly support the Amendment as against the proposal of the Government.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Lansbury

I am sorry to intrude on the Committee, not having heard the whole of the discussion, but on each occasion when I have been here I have wanted to take part and there has not seemed to be an opportunity. To all these proposals I am in straight opposition, and I am particularly in opposition to the proposal to increase the salary of the Prime Minister. On one occasion when we were discussing these matters I said I thought all the Members of the House should be paid one level salary, and, just as on the county council we give time and service for no remuneration, so we might do here. I have been surprised to hear all the talk there is about the expenditure at Downing Street. Before the House of Commons was called upon to consider these proposals, the whole question of the upkeep and the cost of Downing Street and Chequers to the National Exchequer should have been gone into. We should really know what the State has to supply in the way of services and furniture to 10, Downing Street. I may be told that, as I held the office of First Commissioner, I ought to remember, but I have forgotten. I know that there are fairly large services that are paid for out of the Consolidated Fund for the upkeep for both places.

It is a mistake at this time to single out the Prime Minister for doubling the salary. I am tired of hearing discussions as to the expenses of the office. The Government Hospitality Fund ought to supply all the hospitality that the Prime Minister or any other Minister is called upon to give. The existence of that fund ought to be sufficient to guarantee that whatever entertainments of a public nature are necessary will be paid for. When we discuss the value of the emoluments of the Prime Minister do not let us forget that we are also making provision whereby he will be entitled to a pension at the rate of £2,000 a year, which, under the present rate of taxation will give him, I suppose, about £1,500 net. He will not be too badly off on that, and will be able to live in accordance with what is decent, having regard to the position he has previously held.

We cannot judge this proposal for £10,000 without taking into account the cost of the upkeep of the two residences, and we ought to know what part the State does towards that. I am not a person who was not glad to be paid £2,000 a year, I think it was, but I went into office with a deficit and I came out of it with one, because I am built that way. Some of us can be poor on any amount of money, or poor on a small sum of money. I am not a person who backs horses, or gambles, but I do get rid of money. I am credited with not knowing the value of money. But the point I want to make is that the country did not get any better service out of me as First Commissioner of Works by paying me £2,000 a year than it would have got out of me if I had been selected to do that job just as a Member of the House.

When I think of the unpaid work done by members of local authorities, I feel that is one of the things of which our country can be most proud. Listening to the discussion about these salaries, I have felt that we forget the enormous amount of work which is done by people who are very poor, many of them doing it without any remuneration, and I do not think we are honouring the position of Prime Minister by making a fuss about the private entertaining he does—he need not give any public entertainments at his own expense—and then, on top of that, pleading that he must not be left impoverished at the end of his term of office, because we are providing for that by a pension of £2,000 a year. I think we ought to keep the salary at £5,000, but as the £5,000 Amendment has not been called I hope we shall all vote for the £7,000, though I think that is £2,000 too much.

7.35 p.m.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne

I think that there is a great deal to be said for the argument which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward as to the necessity for inquiring into the expenses which necessarily fall upon the Prime Minister of this country. I do not quarrel with that suggestion, but I would merely point out that to-night we have to deal with the situation as it is. I do not think his remarks, with which I entirely agree, regarding the valuable work done voluntarily throughout the country have any bearing upon this question, because there we are dealing with offices which are not full-time jobs and with people who either have an opportunity of making money in other directions or have retired from active business after a life in which they have provided for their leisure. The main argument of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was that in this case it was not desirable to pay any salary in the neighbourhood of £5,000 or £7,000, because that was not necessary for the style in which the Prime Minister had to live. That, again, I suggest, is a point of view which we cannot usefully discuss to-night.

To my mind, the problem is a perfectly simple one and resolves itself into this: Is the amount which the Prime Ministers of the future will receive—assuming, as I think we are bound to do, that the present rate of taxation or something like it, will continue for some time—sufficient to enable any man chosen by the country to be Prime Minister to enter upon his office, to fulfil it and to leave it without being any poorer than when he enters it? On another occasion it may be desirable to argue that he should not have to do this, or that, and that the whole scale on which the head of the Government lives should be a different one from that which exists to-day, but I do not think there is any Member who would desire that under present circumstances the Prime Minister should live and should entertain on a scale which would be out of keeping with the position of this country in the world to-day. Whatever we may decide in the future has nothing to do with the present problem. The whole problem to-night is whether any man who has no private means can enter upon the office of Prime Minister, serve in that office for a number of years, and leave it no poorer than when he entered it on a smaller salary than the one which is being proposed.

I do not think the hon. Member for Bridgeton can fairly say that because this country has been fortunate through, perhaps, hundreds of years in having had as Prime Ministers men with private means, and who did not, therefore, as he put it, die in poverty, that that is an argument which we can take into account when we are considering a future in which we may very badly want as Prime Minister some man who has no private means at all. If we look at it from that point of view, remembering that this £10,000 will probably become only £6,000 or £7,000 after the deduction of taxation, and consider what, in present circumstances, the Prime Minister has to do in the way of entertaining and the style in which he has to live, I suggest that it would not be right for this Committee to pass any figure which would not enable any person in the State to occupy that office and to leave it as well off as when he entered it. With these few words I shall strongly support the proposal in the Bill.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Mender

My right hon. Friend put his arguments in favour of this Amendment in a very effective way, with clearly stated reasons, and I think this is a Debate in which Members in all quarters of the House would desire to state their position. I have been looking forward with great interest to hear what guidance we shall receive from the Opposition Front Bench. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) was speaking on their behalf.

Mr. Lansbury

No.

Mr. Mander

The right hon. Gentleman repudiates that suggestion, and so perhaps we shall hear something from that Front Bench before the Debate closes. It has been suggested that those on the Opposition Front Bench have a close personal interest in this Bill.

Mr. James Griffiths

If the hon. Member will read the Amendment on the Paper standing in our names, he will see what position we on these benches take up.

Mr. Mander

I saw that Amendment, but it does not bear the name of any of the Leaders of the Opposition, and therefore I am genuinely interested in knowing where they stand. It is suggested that they have some personal interest in this, but we all know, though it is a very regrettable fact, that the Labour party have no chance whatever

of coming into office in any forseeable future.

The Deputy-Chairman

I do not see how that question arises.

Mr. Mander

May I explain? [Interruption.] Surely an individual in immediate expectation of receiving one of these salaries has a rather different interest in the matter than one who has not. I regret very much that the Labour party have no chance of coming into office immediately. [Interruption.] I have no doubt that we shall receive guidance on that subject. To turn to the merits of the case. At first sight there is a great attraction in saying that the Prime Minister should be the highest paid civil servant in the whole country, because it is the greatest position, but when we come to look into it that argument has already gone, because the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General and, possibly, certain other Ministers are already paid sums considerably in excess of what the Prime Minister receives. Therefore we are driven back to other grounds, and I cannot help thinking that on those grounds there is a great deal to be said for the argument put forward by my right hon. Friend.

Question put, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 173; Noes, 105.

Division No. 175.] AYES. [7.42 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Clydesdale, Marquess of Gluckstein, L. H.
Albery, Sir Irving Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Gower, Sir R. V.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd) Colfox, Major W. P. Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Cooke, J. O. (Hammersmith, S.) Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Apsley, Lord Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Gridley, Sir A. B.
Aske, Sir R. W. Cranborne, Viscount Grimston, R. V.
Assheton, R. Craven-Ellis, W. Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page Hannah, I. C.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead) Crooke, J. S. Hannon, Sir P. d. H.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Cruddas, Col. B. Harbord, A.
Balniel, Lord Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M. Denman, Hon. R. D. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Doland, G. F. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Beauchamp, Sir B. C. Donner, P. W. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Dorman-Smith, Major R. H. Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Bennett, Sir E. N. Dower, Capt. A. V. G. Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W. Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Holmes, J. S.
Bracken, B. Duggan, H. J. Hope, Captain Hon. A. 0. J.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Eastwood, J- F. Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Burghley, Lord Edmondson, Major Sir J. Hurd, Sir P. A.
Burgin, Or. E. L. Ellis, Sir G. Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Butler, R. A. Elmley, Viscount Latham, Sir P.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Emery, J. F. Leckie, J. A.
Cartland, J. R. H. Emrys-Evans, P. V Lees-Jones, J.
Carver, Major W. H. Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.) Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester) Fildes, Sir H. Lewis, O.
Caznlet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Findlay, Sir E. Liddall, W. S.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) Fox, Sir G. W. G. Lloyd, G. W.
Channon, H. Furness, S. N. Looker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Chorlton, A. E. L. Ganzoni, Sir J. Loftus, P. C.
Clarry, Sir Reginald Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J. McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
McKie, J. H. Reid, W. Allan (Derby) Sutcliffe, H.
Magnay, T. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) Thomas, J. P. L.
Markham, S. F. Ropner, Colonel L. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M. Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry) Titchfield, Marquess of
Maxwell, Hon. S. A. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Rowlands, G. Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen) Turton, R. H.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick) Salt, E. W. Wakefield, W. W.
Moreing, A. C. Samuel, M. R. A. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry Sanderson, Sir F. B. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P. Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Shakespeare, G. H. Waterhouse, Captain C.
Nail, Sir J. Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) Watt, G. S. H.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham) Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar) Wedderburn, H. J. S.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J. Shepperson, Sir E. W. Wells, S. R.
Orr-Ewing, I. L. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Penny, Sir G. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen) Williams, C. (Torquay)
Perkins, W. R. D. Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe) Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Petherick, M. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Pickthorn, K. W. M. Spears, Brigadier-General E. L. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Plugge, Capt. L. F. Spens, W. P. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde) Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.
Ramsbotham, H. Stourton, Major Hon. J. J. Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Ramsden, Sir E. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Strickland, Captain W. F. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h) Lieut. - Colonel Llewellin and
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down) Stuart, Hor.. J. (Moray and Nairn) Commander Southby.
NOES.
Adams, D. (Consett) Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Parkinson, J. A.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Potts, J.
Adamson, W. M. Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Price, M. P.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Groves, T. E. Pritt, D. N.
Ban field, J. W. Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Ridley, G.
Barnes, A. J. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Barr, J Hardie, G. D. Rowson, G.
Bellenger, F. J. Hayday, A. Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Sanders, W. S.
Broad, F. A. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Sexton, T. M.
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Hollins, A. Short, A.
Buchanan, G. Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Simpson, F. B.
Burke, W. A. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Cassells, T. Kelly, W. T. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Charleton, H. C. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Chater, D. Kirby, B. V. Sorensen, R. W.
Cluse, W. S. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Lathan, G. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Cocks, F. S. Leach, W. Thorne, W.
Cove, W. G. Lee, F. Thurtle, E.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Leslie, J. R. Tinker, J. J.
Daggar, G. Logan, D. G. Viant, S. P.
Dalton, H. Macdonald, G. (Ince) Walker, J.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) McEntee, V. La T. Watkins, F. C.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) McGhee, H. G. Welsh, J. C.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) MacLaren, A. Whiteley, W.
Ede, J. C. Maclean, N. Wilkinson, Ellen
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Mander, G. le M. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Evans, O. O. (Cardigan) Mathers, G. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Gardner, B. W. Maxton, J. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Garro Jones, G. M. Messer, F. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Milner, Major J. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Noel-Baker, P. J. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Gibson, R. (Greonock) Oliver, G. H.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) Paling, W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Parker, J. Sir Hugh Seely and Mr. Dingle Foot.

Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

7.50 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths

The Committee has now decided that the salary of the Prime Minister shall be £10,000 a year, and one of the arguments in support of that proposition was that it was essential to provide a salary which would make it sure that no Prime Minister when he left office— and did not become Leader of the Opposition, in view of the proposal in the next Clause—would have to live in poverty. It occurred to me that that argument might have occurred to the Government in connection with another Measure that we are passing through this House. Some of us are trying to get the Government to lift the income limit under another Bill beyond £400, and the reply has been that a man with an income of £400 and a woman with an income of £250 have ample funds to provide for their own old age pensions. It seems to me to be a gross inconsistency to suggest that a Prime Minister who is to receive £10,000 a year is also to be provided with a pension of £2,000.

Before I came to this House, I sat on a committee, which is still going on in my absence, and going on very well, trying to work up a scheme in South Wales to provide pensions for miners. The owners made a gift, the men made a gift, and we are trying to work out a scheme which will be of great value to that industry and will provide, in a couple of years, some 2,000 pensions for men in the industry. That scheme is being held up by the Government because they will not make the gesture of saying that if these old men

get this 10s. a week, it will not be taken into consideration—

The Deputy-Chairman

I think we had better not pursue that subject on this Clause.

Mr. Griffiths

I thank you, Captain Bourne, for the permission to call the attention of the country to the fact that the Government can be so lavish and yet so niggardly. I cannot let this Clause pass without making my protest against the Government for not acting with the same generosity towards the poorer people as they do towards people who. get salaries of £10,000 a year.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 102.

Division No. 176.] AYES. [7.53 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Edmondson, Major Sir J. Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Albery, Sir Irving Ellis, Sir G. Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd) Elmley, Viscount Penny, Sir G.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Emery, J. F. Perkins, W. R. D.
Apsley, Lord Emrys-Evans, P. V. Petherick, M.
Aske, Sir R. W. Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.) Pickthorn, K. W, M.
Assheton, R. Fildes, Sir H. Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Findlay, Sir E. Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Furness, S. N. Ramsbotham, H.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead) Ganzoni, Sir J. Ramsden, Sir E.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thane.) Gluckstein, L. H. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Balniel, Lord Gower, Sir R. V. Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M. Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Gridley Sir A. B. Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Beauchamp, Sir B. C. Grimston, R. V. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Guinness, T. L. E. B. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Bennett, Sir E. N. Hannah, I. C. Ropner, Colonel L.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W. Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Bracken, B. Harbord, A. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Brass, Sir W. Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Rowlands, G.
Burghley, Lord Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Butler, R. A. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Salt, E. W.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Samuel, M. R. A.
Cartland, J. R. H. Hills, Major Rt. Hon J. W. (Ripon) Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Carver, Major W. H. Holmes, J. S. Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester) Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Selley, H. R.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Hudson, R. S. (Southport) Shakespeare, G. H.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) Hurd, Sir P. A. Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Channon, H. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Chorlton, A. E. L. Latham, Sir P. Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Clarry, Sir Reginald Leckie, J. A. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Clydesdale, Marquess of Lees-Jones, J. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Colfox, Major W. P. Lewis, O. Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Liddall, W. S. Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs) Lloyd, G. W. Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S. Spens. W. P.
Cranborne, Viscount Loftus, P. C. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Craven-Ellis, W. McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page McKie, J. H. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Crooke, J. S. Magnay, T. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Cruddas, Col. B. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Denman, Hon. R. D. Markham, S. F. Sutcliffe, H.
Doland, G. F. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Donner, P. W. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Thomas, J. P. L.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H. Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick) Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Dower, Capt. A. V. G. Moreing, A. C. Titchfield, Marquess of
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Morris-Jones, Sir Henry Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Dugdale, Major T. L. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Duggan, H. J. Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Turton, R. H.
Eastwood, J. F. Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Wakefield, W. W.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) Wells, S. R. Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend) Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R. Young, A. S. L. (Particle)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Waterhouse, Captain C. Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.
Watt, G. S. H. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl Major Sir George Davies and
Wedderburn, H. J. S. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin.
NOES.
Adams, D. (Consett) Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Parkinson, J. A.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Potts, J.
Adamson, W. M. Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Price, M. P.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Pritt, D. N.
Banfield, J. W. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Ridley, G.
Barnes, A. J. Hardie, G. D. Rowson, G.
Barr, J Hayday, A. Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Batey, J. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Sanders, W. S.
Bellenger, F. J. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Seely, Sir H. M.
Broad, F. A. Hollins, A. Sexton, T. M.
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Short, A.
Buchanan, G. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Simpson, F. B.
Burke, W. A. Kelly, W. T. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Charleton, H. C. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Smith, E. (Stoke)
Chater, D. Kirby, B. V. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly>
Cluse, W. S. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. Sorensen, R. W.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. Lathan, G. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Cocks, F. S. Leach, W. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Cove, W. G. Lee, F. Thorne, W.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Leslie, J. R. Thurtle, E.
Daggar, G. Logan, 0. G. Tinker, J. J.
Dalton, H. Macdonald, G. (Ince) Viant, S. P.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) McEntee, V. La T. Walker, J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) McGhee, H. G. Walkins, F. C.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) MacLaren, A. Welsh, J. C.
Ede, J. C. Maclean, N. Wilkinson, Ellen
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Mander, G. le M. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Evans, D. 0. (Cardigan) Mathers, G. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Gardner, B. W. Maxton, J. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Garro Jones, G. M. Messer, F. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Milner, Major J. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) Noel-Baker, P. J. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Gibson, R. (Greenock) Oliver, G. H.
Graham, O M. (Hamilton) Paling, W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.⁄
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Parker, J. Mr Whiteley and Mr. Groves.