MINISTRY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE [MONEY] (Hansard, 10 November 1944)

§ Sir Irving Albery (Gravesend)
I beg to move, in line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (b).
This sub-paragraph deals with the appointment of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry at a salary of£1,500 per annum. I want to give the Minister in charge the opportunity to explain to the Committee that this provision is adequate and suitable to obtain the services of a person to fill what is going to be a very important function. It is perfectly true that the Amendment in my name is to leave out this sub-paragraph, which would have the effect that no Parliamentary Secretary would be appointed. I have moved that because if the Parliamentary Secretary cannot be appointed at an adequate remuneration to enable the most suitable person—no matter whom he may be, and financial questions apart—to accept that position, then, for my part, I would prefer that a Parliamentary Secretary to this Ministry were not appointed. This question has been raised before, and I have always understood that the Prime Minister sympathised with the point of view that I wished to express, but has been unwilling to make any alteration during the war.
The Bill with which we are dealing today is essentially a peace-time Bill, and it therefore seems to me to be a suitable opportunity to come back to this question. The salary of£1,500 per annum mentioned in the Bill would mean that after paying tax, which I estimate would be some£600, it would be reduced to£900 and, deducting a reasonable amount for expenses as a Member of Parliament—a further£300, for which he is not allowed to claim relief—it appears to me that the actual net salary he would re- 1712 ceive under the Government's present proposals would be some£600 per annum. I hope the Minister will not reply by saying that this is in conformity with other salaries which are at present paid to junior Ministers. We are all quite well aware of that but, taking this as an example, I believe it is contrary to the public interest that so inadequate a salary should be offered to a person who is required to fulfil a very important office.
I also believe that, generally speaking, Under-Secretaries are quite inadequately paid compared with Ministers. In my view, they should receive salaries at least half of those paid to the Ministers. Generally, an hon. Member of this House has to serve a term as a junior Minister before he becomes a senior Minister, although there are notable exceptions during the war. If he is ambitious in that direction and intends to place his services at the disposal of the State as a Minister of the Crown, he has to rearrange his whole life and any other means of livelihood he has will have to be put aside. Although there are still young men with means who, no doubt, would gladly accept the provision which it is proposed to make, and have accepted it in the past, I do not think so many will be available in the future, and I do not think it is the desire of this House, or of the country, that the opportunity to accept positions of this kind should be confined mainly to young men who happen to be supplied with adequate private means, or else to other persons without, possibly, any very great experience in life outside this House and who have never been in a position to earn any very high rate of remuneration.
It seems to me that in the future, more than ever, we shall require to encourage the ambition of persons with varied experience and ability who can command a certain figure of remuneration, either in the professions or in other enterprises outside this House, and who, not being—as they should not always be—just young men who come into this House to make it a very honourable but nevertheless professional career, have gained experience outside and, in the gaining of it, have assumed certain responsibilities. It appears to me that this type of person is also very desirable and, without inflicting upon their families a very great hardship, they would be unable to leave their exist- 1713 ing callings in life and take office under the Government on the kind of terms which they are now offered. I have no hope that anything can be done to-day, but it seemed to be an opportunity of bringing this matter once more to the notice of the House, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will bring it again to the notice of the Prime Minister so that in the near future this matter, which I consider to be of great public importance, may receive further careful consideration.

§ Mr. Alexander Walkden (Bristol, South)
We object very strongly to this Amendment and are amazed that it is being moved. It is an extraordinary thing, in the creation of a great new Ministry which is to take over from other Government Departments vast volumes of work, and one which will be looked up to by millions of working people of this country, that its Minister is to be denied a Parliamentary Secretary. What are we to do if he is ill, or called away, or things happen so that he is not able to keep on top of his work? He must have a Parliamentary Secretary.

The Deputy-Chairman
I ought to point out that this Amendment is not denying the Minister a Parliamentary Secretary, it is simply refusing to pay him.

§ Mr. A. Walkden
That is worse than ever. He will probably be the most bard-worked Parliamentary Secretary in the whole outfit and will have no salary.

§ Sir I. Albery
I only desire that he will get a proper trade union rate of pay.

§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peake)
I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) made his purpose tolerably clear. His view is not that there should not be a Parliamentary Under-Secretary nor even that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the new Ministry should be unpaid. His case was that Parliamentary Secretaries generally, and this one in particular, are a underpaid class of human beings. This is a very delicate topic, particularly for an Under-Secretary to deal with, and I am quite sure that my hon. Friend would not expect any pronouncement of policy on this matter from me to-day. This matter has been raised before, I think upon the Ministers of the 1714 Crown Act of 1937, and it has been raised at Question Time and, I think, in the Debate on the King's Speech at the commencement of last Session.

§ Mr. Hynd (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
And it has been raised by old age pensioners.

§ Mr. Peake
I am afraid I do not follow the relevance of my hon. Friend's remarks.

The Deputy-Chairman
This is a very delicate point and I think we must refrain from going into the wide principles of it and, particularly, from going off to other matters.

§ Mr. Peake
I was certainly not intending to diverge from the matter immediately before the House, and I was going to conclude my brief observations by saying that what has been said by my hon. Friend will be brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.