§
Ordered:
That the Report from the Select Committee on Members' Expenses be now considered.—[Mr. Whiteley.]
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient—
§ 7.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Manningham-Buller (Daventry)I see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now arrived. I think it is.regrettable that he was unable to be here before. I stepped into the breach to keep the discussion going pending his arrival; now that he has arrived I shall not detain the House any longer at this stage.
§ 7.1 p.m.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton)I must apologise to the House if I was beaten in the race by a short head. We are now about to deal with matters relating to our own affairs. I do not think it is necessary for me to make a long speech. I gather that it would be for the general convenience if I were, at this stage, to summarise in one short statement both the proposals in the Motion and the proposals in the Ministerial Salaries Bill, the Second Reading of which is to be taken later. I think that is generally thought to be the most convenient way of proceeding. We would then have a discussion in which any matter might be raised upon either section of these proposals. Following the discussion, we should then hope to get the Second Reading of the Bill formally or with a Division, if desired—but without further Debate. The dates, I would remind—
§ Mr. Manningham-BullerI am not clear from what the Chancellor has said whether he intends or desires to discuss at this stage the alterations in the Members' salaries and the increases in Ministerial salaries. I rather apprehend that there is a view that it would be desirable to discuss those matters separately.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt would be rather inconvenient to discuss them separately. We are, after all, discussing the Report of the Select Committee, and the Second Reading and the Motion are both covered by it. It would be inconvenient to have to debate subsequently the increase of salaries of junior Ministers when it could have been debated in the first discussion. I think it might be for the convenience of the House to have a general Debate, and I should then propose to call the Amendment. We could then proceed to discuss the Bill. I think it would be for the general convenience of the House if we had a general Debate now and, although it is not usual to discuss a Bill which is coming on, I think I might. 1233 make an exception on this occasion with the general agreement of the House.
§ Mr. DaltonI am only anxious not to take up too much time and I thought it would be economical in time to make a short statement covering the whole subject. This question of the salaries of Members of Parliament and other kindred matters was discussed up to a point in the Coalition Government but it was felt that, with a new Parliament shortly to be elected, the matter should be left over until the new Parliament met. The present Government looked at the question again and we felt it would be very much better for a Committee of the Members of the House to look into the question quite frankly, without any direct lead from the Government as to what was desirable. Therefore, on 15th November last a Select Committee was appointed, and it issued its Report on 6th March. On 30th April, with the authority of the Cabinet, I made a statement in the House of the Government's proposals, which in substance and on the great majority of points at issue, follow the recommendations of the Select Committee.
We are very grateful to the Select Committee for their work, and I am glad that the Report of the Select Committee was unanimous. Upon the Select Committee there served some Members of considerable experience of the House, and also some young Members who brought to the discussions the freshness which is appropriate to new arrivals, and between them they agreed on a number of proposals. Substantially the Government accept those proposals, and—I think my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley) will agree with me—the Government are stating their view and propose to offer guidance to the House, but since this is a matter which concerns the House as a whole, and not only one section, it would not be appropriate for Whips to be put on in the ordinary way. It will be open for Members to vote as they think right and proper, and my function is simply that of offering reasons why, in the Government's view, these proposals should be accepted.
I will run over the points in the Motion. We propose in the first place, to follow the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee that the salary of the general body of Members of 1234 the House—I am not speaking of Ministers—should be raised from the present figure of £600 to the figure the Select Committee propose—£1,000 a year. We propose that all these changes in rate of remuneration should date from the beginning of the financial year—1st April— which is most convenient from the point of view of accounting, and notice of our intention to propose that was given when I made my statement on 30th April. The first proposal, therefore, is that what I may call the standard salary paid to Members, should be raised from £600 to £1,000 a year. The Government think, having read the Report of the Select Committee, that the Select Committee have reached a reasonable balance here, that in view of the many claims now made upon Members in respect of incidental expenditure, incidental to performing their duties here, the increasing need for secretarial assistance and the like—it is healthy that it should be so—the increasing claims made by constituents on Members; and having regard to other matters relevant to considering what is a reasonable rate of remuneration, we think the Select Committee have got it right, and we accept their proposals.
In the second place, we propose that in the case of those who are Members of the Government, who are Ministers with salaries less than £5,000 a year or who are in receipt of salary as an officer of His Majesty's Household, or as Chairman or Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, or as Leader of the Opposition, or in receipt of a pension in respect of past services as Prime Minister, they should not have an increase in their Ministerial or official salary but that they should, being Members of the Commons House, be entitled to draw £500 a year, that is to say, half the new Member's salaries. If one likes to put it this way, in future any Member of this House becoming a Minister at a salary of less than £5,000 a year, will be deemed to retain half his private Members salary, and will be paid that £500, in addition to the existing scale of salaries paid to Ministers as such.
I will now emphasise the one point at substance on which the Government do not recommend the House to accept the proposals of the Select Committee. The Select Committee proposed that, both in the case of the Private Member and in the case of the Ministers affected by these 1235 [Mr. Dalton.] arrangements they should receive £500 freed automatically from Income Tax. We do not think that would be a good arrangement and we have reached that view not only on the merits as we see them, but also in the light of what we gather to be the general opinion of hon. Members in a number of different parts of the House. Therefore, we propose that in respect of the increased salary of £1,000 a year to Private Members, and in respect of the increment of £500 to Members of this House who are also Ministers, over and above the £ a year which is already deemed to be expenses and free from Income Tax, the existing arrangements should continue exactly as they are now; that is to say, the individual will be required, if he seeks relief from Income Tax over and above-the £100 which is automatically free, to make his case like any other citizen in the ordinary way. I think that is better. I quite appreciate the Select Committee's arguments in favor of the other plan, but the Government think this is definitely a better way of doing it. We hope that the House will, to that extent, agree to a departure from the recommendations of the Select Committee.
These are the two major points. There are one or two other matters which I wish to state to the House. I am dealing now with the matters in the Motion. The Motion proposes that more convenient arrangements should be made with respect to the facilities for railway travel available to hon. Members. This really means the facility of season tickets for Members traveling daily between their homes and this House. Already, in fact, facilities have been granted, and I think the plan is working well, whereby any Member who undertakes that it is his intention to travel between his residence and the House of Commons four times a week at least, should be entitled to obtain a season ticket. His intention may not be exactly carried out, if he is sick or otherwise engaged in business, for instance, and his residence is not defined with great exactitude. We are prepared to leave it to determination by common sense. Clearly, a Member resident in Newcastle would not travel between his residence in Newcastle and the House of Commons four times a week— at least this would be a very unlikely state of affairs. If a Member were so odd in his habits as to wish to 1236 do this, it is not ruled out, but of course it is not a practical case.
Mr. McKie (Galloway)He could sleep in the train.
§ Mr. DaltonIf he liked to he could— over the wheels all the time.
§ Mr. DaltonYes, but it is unlikely that any one would wish to put himself in Order in that way. If anybody were to reside at Brighton, for example, there is a good train service from there to the canter of London and he would be entitled to use season ticket facilities That is what we propose and we propose further, under paragraph (c) of the Motion, that Mr. Speaker should be invited to appoint a Committee of Members of this House who should advise him on the rules and practice governing the payment of traveling expenses of Members of the House and of subsistence allowances payable to them when traveling on the official business of the House. I want to make this clear because, when my announcement was first made, perhaps there was some defect of clarity in it. This relates of course to subsistence allowances, payable only when a Member is actually traveling on the business of the House as a whole or on. some committee of the House as a whole.
The case which I gave when I made my previous announcement was that of the Estimates Committee which may set up a sub-committee to advise on, shall we say, the Air Estimates. In such cases, some hon. Members may travel, in agreement with the Air Ministry, to airfields and other establishments to look at them and talk to those in charge on the spot. In such a case they would be entitled to expenses and subsistence allowances, and from time to time matters may arise which it is convenient for you, Mr. Speaker, as the arbiter of these questions, to have the advice of a small group of Members from whom you would select the advice you need. The Government think that would be a very practical step, and the Treasury are quite agreeable to it. We would not wish the Treasury Ministers—neither my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary nor myself—to sit on the Committee, but we would be quite prepared, for an experienced official of the Treasury to attend to give an opinion or evidence on any matter, and no doubt, 1237 Mr. Speaker, some of your own staff— the authorities of the House as they are commonly called—would also be available for consultation, though the Committee itself would consist of Members of the House. I think such a Committee is not likely to meet at all often, but its existence would provide a useful procedure.
Now I come to Members of another place. This is outside the scope of the Select Committee and it would have been outside their terms of reference to consider it, but representations have been made on behalf of Members of another place that some of them find it difficult in these days to travel constantly, sometimes long distances, from their residences to the other place. Therefore, wishing to be fair to all, we have thought it right— representations having come to us through the usual channels connecting this and the other place—that provision should be made—it will have to be supported later on by an Estimate which can be debated in this House if desired—to enable Members of the House of Lords to recover out of the sums voted for the expenses of that House the cost of railway fares incurred by them in attending that House for the purposes of their Parliamentary duties. The Government accept that proposal. It was not part of our original suggestion, but we think it not unfair and not unreasonable, and I understand that the Members of another place have it in mind to make a regulation. I think we can leave it to them to make a regulation limiting this facility to those who are reasonably regular attendants, and if any debatable matter should arise at any time, it could be raised in this House when the money is voted for the general expenses of another place.
This completes the Motion. Now we must also have a Bill in order to implement the recommendations of the Committee in certain respects, because the Ministers of the Crown Act of 1937 prohibits a Member of the House of Commons from receiving payment, when he is a Minister, in respect of membership of the House of Commons. This must be removed by an amendment of the law, and this we propose to do to enable us legally to give effect to the provision in the Motion which I have already explained, whereby Ministers with less than £5,000 a year shall receive an addi- 1238 tional £500. To pass the Motion is not enough to give effect to that in the case of junior Ministers. The Motion is enough to give effect to the provisions about Private Members' salaries, but the proposal with respect to Junior Ministers can only be put into effect if we amend that Act, as this Bill does. The only other matters dealt with in the Bill are certain proposed changes in one or two ministerial salaries lying between the £5,000 level and £1,500 level—I will enumerate them in a moment—and the raising of two junior ministerial salaries from the £1,200 to the £1,500 level. It is set out with complete clarity in the Bill.
I see that the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has just come in, and I would like to say how very grateful we are to the Select Committee, of which he was a Member, for the work they have done and we are very glad that their Report was unanimous. We are very grateful. It is a very good piece of work, and of great assistance. The Select Committee recommended that we should look into questions relating to some of what I might call intermediate salaries. The Government have done so, and propose certain changes. We propose in the case of the Postmaster-General, who has a very important Department, and a very heavy burden of work and responsibility, that his salary should be raised from £ 3,000 to £5,000 a year, and in the case of the Minister of Pensions, that the salary should be raised to £3,000 a year. We propose that the Assistant Postmaster-General, who now receives £ 1,200 a year—
§ Earl Winterton (Horsham)As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to me, I am sure he will not mind me interrupting. He is quite correct in his statement of what the Select Committee suggested should be looked into, and if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I shall have certain points to make on the Bill when we come to it.
§ Mr. DaltonI was endeavouring to explain that in making these recommendations, the. Select Committee are not committed to the details of the change and that in carrying out the inquiry, we were doing what the Select Committee wished, namely, inquiring into these salaries and making recommendations. Of course, the recommendations may not necessarily be those which any member 1239 of the Select Committee may himself have thought correct.
We propose that the Assistant Postmaster-General should have £ 1,500, instead of £ 1,200, which brings him to the general level paid to the great majority of junior Ministers. We propose that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster shall, likewise, receive a payment of £ 3,000 and that the increment should be taken, not from the Duchy funds, but from voted money of Parliament. I do not know whether the House would wish me to go into detail on the various recommendations, or think it better that we should wait until we get to the Bill. I think that that might save the time of the House, but I merely draw the attention of hon. Members to other particular detailed proposals in the Bill, including one which I think has some importance. We do not now have any intermediate salary scale between the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury, who is the Chief Whip, and the general body of Whips. It seems that there is a case for having a Deputy Chief Whip with a salary slightly higher than is generally paid, who could act in the absence of the Patronage Secretary. We propose that there should be power to designate at any time one of the Whips other than the Chief Whip, and allot to him £ 1,200 a year, and he will be known as the Deputy Chief Whip.
I do not wish to prolong my initial statement, but I hope the House will think that the Government in making these proposals have not only kept close to the recommendations of the Select Committee, but have also made proposals which are in themselves reasonable. This is a matter affecting us, a matter of some potential delicacy, and I think I have presented it in such a way as not to offend any susceptibilities. I merely present what we think at this stage is a reasonable body of proposals and for which we are much indebted to their originators.
§ 7.24 p.m.
§ Mr. Osbert Peake (Leeds, North)The right hon. Gentleman has taken, with your assent, Mr. Speaker, the course which is unusual in this House of moving a Motion and the Second Reading of a Bill in the same speech.
§ Mr. DaltonI have not technically moved the Second Reading of the Bill.
§ Mr. PeakeThe right hon. Gentleman has made the speech he would have made when he comes to move the Second Reading of the Ministerial Salaries Bill. That course is not wholly convenient to hon. Members, for this reason. It is true that the House agreed on 15th November, without a Division, to appoint a Select Committee to consider the expenses, remuneration and conditions of work of Members of Parliament, including junior Ministers. On that occasion I expressed some views on the general question which, although I was speaking only for myself, were, I think, acceptable to a considerable number of my hon. Friends on these benches. In particular, I asked for an assurance that when proposals came to be formulated, they should be left, in this matter of Members' salaries, to a free vote of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman gave me some hope at that time that that course would be taken. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, no pressure, no appeal to party loyalties, will be made. I want to make it quite clear that I speak this evening entirely for myself. I hope that on the Motion relating to Members' salaries and expenses hon. Members on the Government side of the House will be similarly free to vote in accordance with their feelings.
§ Mr. DaltonI said so.
§ Mr. PeakeThe right hon. Gentleman said so. I am very much obliged to him for that reassurance, but it is obvious in regard to the Ministerial Salaries Bill that hon. Members opposite cannot accept the same freedom. It is a Government Measure, and it would surprise me very much if the right hon. Gentleman. were prepared to divest himself of the assistance which the Whips give him when, and if, the matter comes to a Division. For that reason, I say it is a little inconvenient to be taking a general discussion on one matter where the Whips will be off, in conjunction with another matter on which, I take it, the Whips will be on. For that reason, I hope we shall be permitted at any rate a short discussion when we come to the Bill.
§ Mr. SpeakerMay I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? He was not here when I made a statement and said that I thought it would be more convenient to have a general discussion now and a discussion on the Bill would naturally come 1241 subsequently. I did not suggest that in order to prevent, discussion on the Bill but in the hope that it might help and shorten debate on it.
§ Mr. PeakeI am very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for that Ruling. To turn to the substance of the matter, I think one must first express the sense of indebtedness we all feel to the ron. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) and the other Members of the Select Committee for the careful and thorough investigation which they made into this matter. With one exception, which the Chancellor mentioned, I am in agreement with their recommendations. I am particularly glad that in accordance with the views expressed on 15th November they have not recommended any extension of the system of payments in kind. Payments in kind, as I then said, are liable to abuse, unless hedged around with safeguards of a type which are very vexatious to hon. Members. In the second place, they are open to the charge, or at any rate the suspicion, that we are receiving substantial emoluments in a concealed form. It is, of course, very much easier to defend a reasonable salary payment if there are real liabilities arising from our Parliamentary duties to be set against the Parliamentary salary. I differed from the recommendation of the Select Committee as also has the right hon. Gentleman, in regard to the question of the amount of the tax free payments for expenses. I found that very abhorrent to my constituents. They took the view, and I think they were right, that it would be all wrong for hon. Members to come under what in practice would be a different Income Tax law from the ordinary citizen. I am, therefore, very pleased that the Government have taken the view that the salary should be a clear, fixed sum, and that-the recipient of it should be in the same position, as regards claiming expenses, as any other professional man or citizen who earns a salary.
Before dealing with the question of the amount of the salary, which is a little controversial, I should like to ask one or two questions about the details of the Motion. The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that there would have to be a Supplementary Estimate covering all the heads of expenditure in the Motion.
§ Mr. Dalton indicated assent.
§ Mr. PeakeI am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I should like to 1242 ask why this Motion is retrospective. Why are the increased salaries to be made payable from 1st April last? That is surely an unusual course to take. I should have thought that 1st April was a particularly unfortunate day to choose —[Laughter]— not only for the reason which, obviously, is in the minds of hon. Members, but also from the point of view of the Income Tax law For Income Tax purposes the year ends at midnight. 5th April, and by making this salary payable as from 1st April last, 640 Income Tax expenses claims, which have already been settled, will obviously have to be reopened. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look again at the question of the date from which the increase is to commence.
I should like to express a view on the question of why junior Ministers receiving less than £ 5,000 a year, and officers of the House, that is, the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, are not to be given the full benefit of the Parliamentary salary. It is really quite illogical to give these people one half of a Member's salary. They are full Members of Parliament. On the face of it, therefore, it really seems a little absurd to give them only half of a Member of Parliament's salary. I suppose that the explanation is that Ministers receiving £ 5,000 a year are to receive no Parliamentary salary, and that it is thought convenient to place these junior Ministers, Whips and officers of the House in a kind of halfway house, and to say that, as the £ 5,000 a year Ministers are to receive nothing, and as the ordinary Back Bench Member is to receive the salary in full, these people in an intermediate position shall receive half the Parliamentary salary.
I am not quite satisfied with that. I have great sympathy with Whips and junior Ministers. They have been hardly treated hitherto. They give up the best years of their life, from the point of view of a private or professional career, and I have never been satisfied that they were sufficiently well remunerated. I served as Under-Secretary under a number of Ministers, and with one solitary exception — the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir T Anderson)— I always felt that I was worth at least half the salary my chief was getting.
§ Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)What does the right hon. Gentleman think of the exception?
§ Mr. PeakePerhaps the right hon. Gentleman was worth the salary of at least two Ministers receiving £ 5,000 a year. The job of an Under-Secretary is no longer, as it used to be a generation ago, a sinecure, and hon. Members who take on the junior Ministerial jobs very often do so at heavy personal sacrifice. For my part, I should have liked to see them being given the full Parliamentary salary as Members of Parliament.
I turn for a moment to the question of the amount of remuneration. The right hon. Gentleman, following the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee, proposes £ 1,000 a year. This goes rather beyond what I had in mind when I spoke on 15th November last. I thought, at that time, that an addition of £ 200, or something of that order, would have increased the Parliamentary salary in line with the increase with the cost of living. That would have been a modest and an easily defensible proposal. It would have represented an increase much smaller than increases which have taken place outside this House in many spheres of activities since before the war. But, on reconsideration, I am not disposed to quarrel with the conclusion that £ 1,000 a year should now be paid.
My reasons for coming to that conclusion are, first of all, as I have already mentioned, that this is the unanimous opinion of the Select Committee, which has gone very carefully into the matter. In the second place, £ 1,000 today is worth—it is a curious reflection—no more than the££400 which was originally granted as the Parliamentary salary in the year 1911. Thirdly— and to me this is the most cogent argument of all— fixing the salary rather higher than it was on a cost of living basis before the war, opens the doors of Parliament to a wider sphere of aspirants for Parliamentary office. It was said after the war of 1918, I forget whether it was by Lord Baldwin or Lord Keynes, that Parliament was made. up of hard-faced men who looked as though they had done well out of the war. What the verdict of history will be upon the first postwar Parliament after the 1939–45 war, I should hesitate to guess. At any rate, I think we all recognise the importance of 1244 opening the doors of Parliament to aspirants of every class and walk of life. For that reason, I have become convinced that £ 1,000 is a reasonable salary. We must not forget that we are engaged in a precarious occupation, an occupation liable to prolonged and unpredictable periods of interruption of employment. Therefore, it is reasonable to prescribe a rate of remuneration which will attract people who are prepared, in mid-career, either to be translated upwards, translated downwards, or moved horizontally into another place. In passing, I may say that it is very necessary to prescribe a rate of remuneration which will not leave hon. Members open to the temptation of supplementing their incomes in an undesirable fashion.
There are two Amendments on the Order Paper to the Motion regarding Members' salaries. One suggests that the increase should be granted only in those cases where an hon. Member can satisfy a specially appointed Committee of Members, in confidential session, that such increase is essential to enable him to carry out his Parliamentary duties satisfactorily— [An HON. MEMBER: "That is a means test."] I do not intend to waste very much time upon that Amendment. I do not believe any body of hon. Members could be found who would be prepared to form a committee to discharge such a distasteful task.
§ Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)Why was it imposed on the old folk?
§ Mr. PeakeIt would involve an examination not only of hon. Members' sources of income but also of their budgets of expenditure. I am quite sure that the Amendment is impracticable for the simple reason that we should never find hon. Members to discharge such a task.
§ Mr. GallacherIt would be an indignity.
§ Mr. PeakeThe other Amendment is one with which one can have some little sympathy. It is in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member to- St. Maryle-bone (Sir W. Wakefield), who proposes that the increases in the various sections of the Resolution should apply not from 1st April last, but from the first sitting day of the next Parliament'. That is to say that he thinks that the increases are good and satisfactory but that they 1245 should come into operation after a certain unpredictable lapse of time. I could understand opposition to the increase in salaries. I could understand any body voting against the Motion. I could also understand an Amendment in favour of a smaller increase than that proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but it does seem very odd to say, "I think the increases are all right but they should not be taken at the present time." Any hon. Member who holds that view has got a very simple way out of his difficulties. He is under no obligation to accept an increase in his salary. That was a course taken by a number of Members of Parliament when the last increase was made in 1937. An hon. Gentleman says " Not very many."I dare say there were not very many. I myself—I take no credit at all for this —was one of them. Quite frankly, I was a little afraid of what some of my constituents might say, but on that occasion I voted for the increase, and that is the course which I suggest my hon. Friend sought to take if they feel a certain reasonable queamishness about an increase in salary at the present time. I suggest that they should support the increase but should themselves decline to take it—
§ Mr. Kirkwood (Dumbarton Burghs)The right hon. Gentleman is making some of them look very serious.
§ Mr. PeakeIt would be one way out of the difficulty in which they find themselves. I think they are taking a great deal upon themselves if they are prepared to say, " Not only am I prepared to forgo any increase at the present time but I am also prepared to try and enforce such a prohibition upon every other hon. Member of this House." For those reasons, if this matter goes to a Division, I shall support the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ 7.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Braddock (Mitcham)As there is a free vote on this matter, I intend to vote for this increase in salaries. I also intend to take the salary, but that does not mean that I am altogether satisfied with the Report which has been brought forward. In my opinion, we shall find as the result of experience that this can be regarded only' as a temporary matter. The Committee was asked to consider remuneration and conditions of work. Broadly speaking, as far as I can see, 1246 only the' question of remuneration has been dealt with. That is probably necessary and unavoidable. Those of us who are new Members of Parliament took on this job with no thought of the remuneration. I do not consider that the financial side of this matter is of any great importance. If the proposal was to double the salary to £ 2,000 a year or to wipe out the salary altogether, I do not think either condition would make very much difference to the membership of this House.
Most hon. Members on this side of the House were sent here as a result of very great sacrifice on the part of many thousands of people. If it was necessary to find additional money to hold us here I am perfectly confident that those people would provide it. Present conditions of work do not enable ordinary Members of Parliament to carry out their duties in the most efficient way, no matter how much salary is paid. One cannot obtain the best service simply by paying out money. Attention must be given very soon to the conditions of work.
That will involve consideration of the use that is made of the Palace of West Minster and of the opportunities given for ordinary Members to carry out their duties. The simple action of increasing the salary to £1,000 year will not enable Members of Parliament to secure the necessary office accommodation or to use secretarial assistance properly and effectively. Therefore, I consider these proposals are a compromise and that the matter will have to be considered in the light of future circumstances. It will have to be considered as soon as the Government, or some authority, can get down to the job of replanning the Palace of Westminster so that proper use can he made of the accommodation. I do not refer simply to the rebuilding of the Chamber. I think it is very unfortunate that it is being rebuilt in the way that it is, but that is not the major problem. The major problem is to make the best possible use—
§ Earl WintertonI was Chairman of the Select Committee which considered that matter. I think, in justice to the Select Committee, I should tell the hon. Member that their recommendations were accepted unanimously by the House.
§ Mr. BraddockThey were not accepted by the present House of Commons. If this matter could be brought up again 1247 I suggest that the decision would be reversed. However, perhaps I ought no! to have mentioned that point. In discussing conditions of work, I am entitled to say something about the whole of the building. I am perfectly certain that this building could be altered and remodelled in order to provide the necessary accommodation and to enable every Member of Parliament to have good conditions of work.
I am very glad that the Government have rejected one of the proposals of the Committee. I refer to the proposal with regard to Income Tax. In view of the fact that they have done that, it puzzles me that payment of railway fares from the homes of hon. Members who live in London to the Palace of Westminster should be allowed. I take it that we did not accept the Report with regard to Income Tax because we did not want to differentiate between Members of Parliament and the public generally. The same reason should apply to railway fares between the House of Commons and the homes in which we live in and around London. If we are paying railway fares for Members of Parliament in these circumstances, we are treating them very differently from the ordinary members of the public, who cannot even get an allowance off their Income Tax for the money they spend on railway fares. The position of many people in London today under these conditions is very difficult. People have been bombed in London and have had to go out into the suburbs to live, and, in order to get to work, have to pay fairly heavy railway expenses. It does seem to me that the Government have made a mistake and that the House will make a mistake in accepting this position.
There is only one other matter on which I want to comment, and that is the proposal to pay railway fares of people in another place. This is a completely new idea. I can quite understand the argument, and it is a right and just one, that the democracy of this country, having, after deliberation, selected certain people to represent them in the House of Commons and engage in the work of Government, should make satisfactory financial arrangements, but the people of this country have never selected the people who sit in another place and have never invited them to legislate on their behalf. I think it is introducing a very dangerous 1248 precedent to pay the railway fares of people sitting in another place, and, if an opportunity can be given, under the arrangements being conducted tonight, for me to vote against that proposal, I shall most certainly do so. Of course, if there is no opportunity, I shall have to let it go through, but I shall only do so under protest.
§ 7.52 p.m.
§ Mr. Henry Strauss (Combined English Universities)I find myself reluctantly compelled to oppose this Motion. Like those hon. Members who have already spoken, I should like to express at once the deep respect that I feel for the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Tom Smith) and his colleagues on both sides of the House, and to say that I differ from the conclusions of their Report most reluctantly, because there is some part of their proposals, and part of this Motion, with which I am in agreement, though I cannot agree to the main proposition that we should increase our salaries to the sum of £ 1,000.
I will put my points very briefly. The first point is that no one has suggested, as far as I know, and the Select Committee certainly did not, that this increase in salary is really made necessary by anything that has happened between the General Election and the present time. Nobody asserts that. Nobody has been elected to this House with any grounds at all for believing that he was going to get more than £ 600 a year. That is the expectation with which every one of us has been elected. Indeed, had the matter been otherwise, and had there been a case at the time of the General Election for raising the salaries, there is no reason at all why that matter should not have been part of the programme and announced to the country in advance. I do not dwell on that point except to say that, quite clearly, there is no one who came to this House with any right to expect any increase of salary. That, I agree, does not take me far on the merits of the proposal, but it is important.
I come to what seems to me to be the very important point of substance. I regard it as improper that this particular House should vote itself an increase of salary. I believe there are few duties of a Government— there are some, but they are comparatively few—that come above the duty of trying to see that the value 1249 of money does not rapidly change. The duties of defence and certain other things come above it, but there is a general duty on Parliament and on the Government to see that the value of money does not rapidly change. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to whom I apologise for having missed the first few minutes of his speech, is aware that the avoidance of inflation is important. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman says so in answer to Questions almost daily. I should obviously be out of Order to go deeply into the matter, but, in my genuine belief, inflation is not only with us, but, by the cowardice and inaction of the Government, is tending greatly to increase. [HON. MEMBERS: " Order."I I know this is controversial, but I believe it to be true, and I say that, by the inaction and cowardice of the Government, it is tending to increase, and that the Government are enjoying the uncomplaining support of the majority of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: " Ridiculous."]
If that inflation proceeds, as I believe it will, and prices rise, every person in the community with a fixed income will suffer grievously. So far from thinking that hon. Members of this House should be immune from that suffering, which will come about largely by their own dereliction of duty, I believe that hon. Members of this House ought to be the first to suffer. Only today, at Question time, an increase in railway fares was announced. As a result of that, we, in this House are already better off than the rest of the community, for the simple reason that we get certain railway travel paid out of public funds. There will, similarly, be an increase of prices in many other things, and every one of our constituents with a fixed income is going to suffer. If I felt that this House was determined and was showing sufficient vigilance to compel the Government to take courageous and wise action to stop inflation, my attitude to this Motion might be different. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Members opposite think it is funny.
§ Mr. GallacherThe hon. and learned Member cannot see himself as others see him.
§ Mr. StraussI do not believe that there is any ground whatever why, if inflation takes place, hon. Members of this House, 1250 and they alone, should have protected themselves from the suffering caused by the inevitable rise in prices.
I have dealt with the first two reasons. Thirdly, there is this one. There is a general belief, I should have thought, in every quarter of the House, that the private Member should, as far as possible, show his independence, and not be, or be thought to be, subservient to the executive Government of the day. I know that that may be thought to be an argument in favour of an increase in salary of private Members on proper occasions. I agree it might, but I do not think it is so when we raise the salary to such a figure that there will be many hon. Members of this House who can earn that salary while they are Members, but who would have no reasonable prospect of earning it in occupations outside. That is an important consideration, and for the three reasons which I have given I find it impossible to support this Motion. If, as I hope, there is a Division, I shall record my vote against it. I would say at once to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peeke), with whom on many subjects I agree, that I am afraid he was quite illogical when he said we shall have the remedy in our own hands. That I believe to be a wholly fallacious argument. I shall not vote against this Motion on the ground that I think there is something peculiarly improper— if it is accepted and becomes the law—in my taking the salary increase. [HON. MEMBERS: " Oh."] — Hon. Members opposite can make use of any point which they think is there. I say there is no point. [An HON. MEMBER: " Give it back to the Treasury."] I may, or may not, but it in no way affects the grounds on which I am opposing this Motion.
The reason which I am certain is of the greatest public importance is the reason of inflation. I think it was the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) who said that this would not be the last increase. If the cost of living is used as an argument, and if inflation proceeds as I fear it will, there will be a case for a similar increase at a later date.
§ Mr. GallacherCheer up.
§ Mr. StraussHon. Members opposite may think it very clever to say "Cheer up," but I would assure the House— and the Communist Party in particular— 1251 that it will not be thought by the country to be particularly funny if a year hence prices have gone up in the same way as railway fares are going up according to this afternoon's announcement, and the only people whose salaries have been increased by 66⅔ per cent. are Members of the House of Commons who voted the increase themselves.
§ 8.4 p.m.
§ Mr. Quintin Hogg (Oxford City)I must say that I do not altogether agree with the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) to which we have just listened, and I would like to give the House my reasons for disagreeing with him. This is a delicate subject to discuss. We are discussing our own salaries and I, no less than other hon. Members, am financially interested in the result. But perhaps, in one way, I have a special qualification to speak. In the first place, long before I was a Member of this House, I made the subject a special study and endeavoured to put into a memorandum the views which I happened to hold about it and; in the second place, I am in a rather different position from most hon. Members inasmuch as my own political life is bound to be a short one. Owing to the constitution of the country I shall certainly, if I live my natural course, be spirited away from this House, whether or not I forfeit the confidence of my constituents. To that extent, at any rate, I can honestly say that perhaps it matters less to me what the result of today's Debate may be than it does to most hon. Members.
I will try to approach this matter from an impartial point of view and to tell the House the objects I have in mind. In the first place, this is not, in any sense, a party matter—it is a House of Commons matter. Nevertheless, I venture to say to my hon. Friends that if there are any Members of my own party who suppose that we shall not be the gainers from paying Members properly, that they are very much mistaken. There is no party in the country which stands to gain more from the proper remuneration of Members than the Conservative Party. The great criticism of our party has been that we have provided nothing for a person of humble origin and limited means to enable him to take a full part in public 1252 life. We represent 9,000,000 voters, but we have not the great organisation which the party opposite have to make it possible for those 9,000,000 voters to be fully represented in this House, and for their point of view to be put forward. I hope that one of the things that will happen as the result of this Motion being carried will be that a sense of shame will be removed from my party on this matter. I am not frightened by the suggestion that it will not be the final figure, and I propose to say a word or two about that later.
The first question, therefore, we have to decide is not a party question; it is, How are we to get the best representation of the people in this House of Commons? I turn to the findings of a very careful research worker in this matter. It is a matter of discredit to our public institutions that, in order to become a Member of Parliament, a person has to belong to one of two or three favored professions. Every other person who was elected to Parliament in the years between the wars was either a member of my own profession, the law, a company director, or a trade union official. That means that practically the entire population of the country is economically prevented from membership of Parliament. That is not a matter which I can look upon with any sense of satisfaction especially as, if one took those of the half which remained, one would find that a great proportion of them were following one of two or three other favoured professions, like journalism, which it is possible to combine with the duties of a Member of Parliament, or that they had ample personal means of their own.
In point of fact, if we do not face this problem, far from dealing with this matter on proper public lines, we shall really be excluding the great bulk of the people from representation in this House in favour of a privileged minority, which exists in all parties, although the nature of the privilege differs from side to side.
The second motive which underlay the consideration of this subject was—I find it difficult to say this tactfully, but, none the less, it has to be said—that we in this country have a very broad tradition of honour in our public life. That is not confined to any class or any party. The standards of our public life are pure and we all desire that they should remain pure. They have become pure only in the last.150 years, at the very most.
1253 We, as British people, are not immune from the ordinary temptations of human nature. What has made public life pure in this country is the insistence, on the one hand, of a very high standard of personal honour among those who take part in it, but, on the other, a state of law which makes it incumbent upon us and possible for us to observe those pure principles. I regard it as a matter of absolute certainty that if there ever comes a time when a great number of Members of this House are elected to it by their constituents and have not, in fact, the means to live in dignity, there will be those who will yield to temptation. I say that deliberately. I am certain that the way to keep public life pure in this country is to see that Members of Parliament are properly remunerated, and there is no other method. It is true that public services used to be given free for a number of centuries, but they were given free because they were performed by a class of person who had the means to perform those duties, and who performed those duties as a public service precisely because they enjoyed the privilege of wealth derived from the land.
Moreover, originally we used to pay Members of Parliament. That was the tradition from the time when Edward I instituted Parliament until late in the 17th century. I think the last Member of Parliament to be paid under the old regime was the poet Marvell, who represented King's Lynn about 1685. The practice of being paid fell into desuetude as a part of the general development of corruption in our public life, whereby seats in Parliament came to be bought, sold and paid for by those who had the means to do it. That is the historical fact. The next stage was for the Parliament of 1730 to insist upon the possession of £ 600 derived from land as the condition for any Member of Parliament holding his seat, which led to many disreputable evasions and which, none the less, remained a peculiar law of our country until 1858. That being the history of the matter, I feel convinced that we have been right to return to the remuneration of Members of Parliament in 1911, and I can only feel that the time has come to examine anew, in the light of the changed circumstances, whether the figure of remuneration is right or wrong.
I will say a word about that in a moment, but in the meantime let me 1254 state the third of the great principles which I think we ought to apply in this Debate. Assume that it be true that we are not, by reason of economic circumstances, getting all the people in Parliament that we ought to get, and assume that we are running the risk of lowering our public standards by not remunerating Members of Parliament at the proper figure, surely it is the duty of every Member of this House to take the responsibility of saying so and of supporting this Motion, and in no circumstances whatever to seek to obtain political capital by exploiting what are, undoubtedly, the obvious, cheap, superficial but utterly misguided criticisms which are seen from time to time in the Press or reflected in the correspondence which we receive from various parts of the country. We must maintain the prestige of the House in this matter. We must make it clear that we are not doing this thing out of a desire for personal advantage, but that we are doing it from the very deepest sense of public duty. If that were not so, I would be the first to vote against this Motion. But the case for doing it is, to my mind, overwhelming.
I shall not go over again the vast bulk of evidence which was accumulated by the Committee, because I assume that even if the public have not read this Report Members of this House will have done so, but I only venture to reply in a word or so to what has fallen from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities. He seemed to suggest that should this Motion be passed, we would be the only persons whose salaries had been increased. But, of course, that is not so.
§ Mr. Henry StraussI said that if the Motion were passed I thought we would be the only people who would have increased our salaries to the extent of 66⅔ per cent., to meet the cost of living
§ Mr. HoggI do not think my hon. and learned Friend can have studied the evidence given before the Committee, because since I have been a Member of Parliament, which is only seven or eight years— nearer-eight than seven—the cost of any conscientious Member's work has increased by a very great deal more than 50 per cent. Take only the question of a secretary's salary. When I was first elected to Parliament—I say it with shame — eight years ago, it was possible to 1255 engage a fairly good secretary for under £3 a week. We cannot get one for under five guineas now, and I do not think we should try. As a matter of fact, a great many secretaries now cost between £ 6 and £8 a week. That sort of thing coming out of a salary of £ 600 makes it absurd to suggest that a substantial increase is not urgently required, on the assumption that the great bulk of Members of Parliament today are men and women who not only have to pay for secretaries, but have to find some means of livelihood for themselves and their families, and have to incur many other expenses.
In addition to that, it is obviously true that even since I have been a Member, and abundantly more so since salaries were first introduced in 1911, the task of a Member of Parliament has been very much more exacting in point of time. It is possible to over-estimate the burden of constituency work. It is very much more important that we should not cause another war than that we should get our constituents the right amount of pensions, but, none the less, merely as a matter of time, the actual burden upon a Member of Parliament, who may be seeking other sources of income, undertaken by conscientiously attending to the 101 details of administration which his work involves, obviously disqualifies him far more than it ever did before from being able to earn his living in some other sphere.
I, therefore, say with confidence that the only right test to apply to this question of salaries is to pay such a figure as will enable a Member of Parliament at a sacrifice — and I emphasise the words " at a sacrifice "— to be able to do that, and nothing else. I myself do not subscribe to the view that Members of Parliament should be debarred from seeking other sources of emolument. On the contrary, I think the most valuable part of our public life has been the fact that this House of Commons has been able to command the services both of the whole-time politician like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wood ford (Mr. Churchill), and of the part-timer who judges the merits and value of the policies which the whole-time leaders inevitably propose from superior experience and study. It would be a disaster to our country if we were all to become whole-time politicians. Nonetheless, I maintain 1256 that the only test for a salary should be a figure which would enable a man at a sacrifice to give himself completely to the service of his country.
I have one word to add on the question of amount, and it is this. I am convinced that the figure of £ 1,000 is too small. I do not suggest that it should now be raised to a higher figure, but I am certain that in the course of years it will be increased and I think we should face that fact. I said so in my evidence and, therefore, I cannot be accused of inconsistency in this respect. It is not likely to be increased during my lifetime as a Member of this House, but the fact of the matter is this:
Even the figure of £ 1,000 is quite disproportionate to what other Legislatures, in other democratic countries, have found it necessary to pay their members in order to get the best service, and I am absolutely certain that the time will come when the remuneration here will increase also. After all, if it be true— as it certainly is in my case— that membership of this House of Commons involves a net outlay of £ 750, it is absurd to pretend that the great bulk of people who enter the service of this House will be able to raise a family, and to keep a wife, on what remains afterwards, after deduction of Income Tax. It simply is not so, and it is naive to pretend that it will be so for the very great majority. I think it is my duty to say so because really I do not care very much, from my own point of view, what happens to this Motion tonight.
There is one argument I should like to counter as regards the Amendment on the Paper. The obvious implication of the Amendment is that we ought not to proceed in this matter without some sort of new mandate from the people. It is said that we should not do it now, but should wait until the first day of the next Parliament. I am bound to say that I reject that argument. It seems to me that a great deal of nonsense is talked about mandates in modern politics. The real truth about the mandate is this: at a General Election a very large number of public issues are under discussion, and the electorate has to give an impressionist view as to which of two or three sets of men it wishes to preponderate in the House of Commons during the period of years which follows. To suggest that minute details of policy ought to be intro- 1257 duced into an election programme is just as silly as the suggestion, which sometimes emanates from the benches opposite, that if they are introduced into the election programmes they ought to be passed through without discussion. The real truth of this matter is that the House of Commons must be the judge of departures in policy if the Government does not care to take the responsibility of announcing it itself. The time-honored constitutional procedure for this follows one of two methods. One is the Select Committee procedure, and the other is the Royal Commission procedure. Following precedents, we have taken the Select Committee procedure in this case. Evidence has been presented, the Select Committee has reported, we have considered the evidence and the Report, and I feel abundantly sure that we ought to proceed now to a decision, to do that which is right if we think it is right.
I will end with this observation. We are doing a difficult thing, but we do owe it to this House of Commons to make it plain to our constituents— from all parts of the House— why we are doing it. There is always a danger in democracy that the two parties abuse each other so much that the general public believes that which is evil which is spoken by both of them, and comes in the end to disregard and despise its democratic institutions. The service of this House of Commons is what matters most in this Debate today, and it is precisely for that reason that I have ventured to say what was in my mind as to why, whatever comes, I shall support this Motion tonight and shall oppose any Amendment which may be pressed— as I hope it will not be— to a Division.
§ 8.24 p.m.
§ Mr. Tom Smith (Normanton)I am sure that Members of the Select Committee will agree with me when I say that we are extremely grateful for all the nice things that have been said about our work. Personally, to have been chairman of a Select Committee like this was a very happy experience. This Report represents a compromise. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) came before the Committee and put forward proposals similar to what he has just outlined. We had evidence from others who wanted less than £ 1,000, but the Report represents a unanimous decision and, on balance, we think that 1258 £ 1,000 is a fair figure. I remember representations which were made in this House before the payment of Members was first introduced in 1911, and I also remember the £ 400, and the very precarious position in which many Members of this House, of all parties, who fell by the wayside in 1921, found themselves because they had not been able to save anything out of their Parliamentary salaries. I think that when the House appointed this Select Committee it knew that £ 600 a year was not sufficient for the work that a Member of Parliament has to do.
There is one thing which needs a little comment. The Committee came out with the suggestion that £ 500 of the £ 1,000 should be free of Income Tax. We discussed this for a very long time. We could have used different language in that Report which would have meant the same thing, but we decided to present the country with what we believed to be the right thing. Looking through the whole of the Press cuttings, from every daily newspaper in this country, with the exception of about two, the comments. have been extremely favourable and extremely gratifying to those who sat on the Committee. The argument that to make £ 500 of a Member's salary free of Income Tax is giving treatment different from that accorded to the ordinary business man is not true. The ordinary man receiving a salary does not pay his own typist, he does not pay his postal bill, he does not pay his hotel bills when he is away doing business for his firm out of his salary. All that is in addition to his salary. But take the position of a Member of Parliament on £ 600 a year. The postal bill alone of a new Member after the General Election was colossal. Living in London was dearer than some people imagined. When I first came to this House in 1922 we could get accommodation at a decent hotel at about half of what we have to pay today. Our expenses generally were far less than they are now. I say without the slightest hesitation that the Select Committee came to the view that £ 1,000 was the right thing. With regard to the Dominion Parliaments. we set out in the Report a summary of what exists in the different Dominion Parliaments. We do not set out what exists in foreign Parliaments, because we thought we would confine ourselves to the British Commonwealth of Nations, but we did take some evidence from those who 1259 have had experience in Parliaments other than of the British Commonwealth, and it was on balance that we came to that figure, and I hope the House will accept it.. I think the Government have done exceptionally well in this Motion.
Some hon. Members who gave evidence and who sat on the Select Committee, in addition to being Members of Parliament, have been Parliamentary Secretaries. The Parliamentary Secretary or Under-Secretary, the moment he accepts office, has to put off all outside earnings. He has not a penny piece allowed to him in any shape or form for expenses. There is no 12 months' carry-over of his Income Tax, it is taken off at the end of the month, and when one comes to reckon what is left he is not much better off than he was when he was an ordinary Member of Parliament. On balance we thought it was wise to say that the Parliamentary Secretaries should have something. Although my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) spoke about giving Under - Secretaries and Parliamentary Secretaries half the Parliamentary salary, I am rather inclined to the view that there would have been some criticism if the Select Committee had suggested that they should have an increase of £ 1,000 instead of £ 500. On balance, we thought this would work out fairly. With regard to conditions of work, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend who sits beside me, we discussed, and took evidence upon, what could be grouped under the term " conditions of work." Suggestions were put forward to us for free postage, free typists, free Empire travel. We disagreed with them all, because we knew that in practice it would be open to abuse. The pooling of secretaries would not work out fairly; I believe that a secretary should be individual to the person for whom she works if it is desired to get the best work. I think that on balance we did the right thing in that regard.
With regard to another place, it is suggested in this Motion that the Noble Lords should be paid traveling expenses. The Select Committee had that matter brought to their attention, but were advised that it was outside their terms of reference; therefore, they could not touch it. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) said he would vote against that. I would point out that 1260 in these modern times, with changes of Government, we have no right to expect Noble Lords, some of whom are not rich, to pay £8, £10 and £15 a week to come to London to do Government work. The Members of another place have been extremely modest in asking for only railway fares. Moreover, they have tried to limit the matter in such a way as to give the benefit only to those who attend to do the work. I think the Select Committee can leave it to the House to decide what they believe to be the best thing. We did not specify any figure in the recommendation that the Government should look into Ministerial salaries of under £ 5,000 a year. We thought it better to advise the Government to look into it. It has been brought forward in such a way as to remove anomalies in two cases. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and the Assistant Postmaster-General were each getting £ 1,200 a year as against the £ 1,500 a year of the other Parliamentary Secretaries. That anomaly has been removed, and we think rightly so. Other increases have been given, and I think the Select Committee can now leave it to the judgment of the House.
§ 8.32 p.m.
§ Sir Ian Fraser (Lonsdale)It is a very proper practice in this House to disclose an interest in any matter which is being debated. Clearly, all of us have an interest in this matter. While I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) that we should approach this entirely objectively, quite obviously we have an interest. For my part, the interest is a small one, because Income Tax and Surtax make it so. While I do not urge this view upon anyone else, I cannot but express it myself as sincerely felt. That very fact makes me feel that I must vote for this figure of £ 1,000, because it means so much more to others, than it does to me. I should think it wrong not to have regard to the situation in which I am quite certain many hon. Members in this House find themselves. I can feel that with all the more sincerity, because when I entered this House over 20 years ago and had to try to maintain life in those days on £ 400 a year, I found it extraordinarily difficult. Entry to this House was almost barred to me, and to many scores of thousands who served, as I did, in the first of our world wars. One had to be either a wealthy 1261 man who could secure nomination to a Conservative constituency, or else a trade union official who, in middle life, was given a reward for having done good work. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I do not think this is a matter for humour. I think it was the cause of a great deal of the bad work done by Parliaments between the wars.
I affirm that the best Parliamentarians are those who enter Parliament young. Hitherto we have been unable to get a real cross-section of our community entering Parliament at a young age; only a few have been able to enter, mainly on this side of the House. It has been mainly from this side of the House that the greatest contributions to our politics have been made. I affirm that this is true. This is no party point. It is a historical fact. [Interruption.] I hope hon. Members will believe me when I say it is not a party point. Because there has been privilege, because there- has been leisure, we have seen the great statesmen who, in the past 100 years, have brought us our freedom, entering this House and, at a young age, learning its work. It is of no use to this House to recruit the great bulk of its membership from successful businessmen in middle life or from successful trade unionists in middle life. If we want a good House of Commons, which does represent a cross-section of the will and thought of our people, we must make it possible for young men to come into this House.
Should the salary be that of a whole-time job? That is the question to which I now address myself. I think the salary should be such a salary as would enable a young man, who has not yet acquired great experience, to come into this House with the certainty that he can at any rate maintain himself for a time, and get on in the world. I should not like to see salaries so high that they would induce people to make Parliamentary life a whole-time job. My view is not that our constituents are not entitled to the very best we can give them; but because I think the best we can give them is a. wider experience than that of a civil servant I say that men should continue to act in the field of trade union activity, that men should continue in their professions, that men who have directorships, men who go into county council work, or farmers should continue their work. All these men can bring a rich variety of talent and 1262 experience to this House. If this House ceased to be a cross-section of active people, and to have Members with roots in many and various aspects of our life, then we should lose much.
I agree profoundly with the hon. Member for Oxford that it is more important that we should be a cross section of the community, and that we should think wisely and sensibly about great issues, than that we should become a Civil Service machine serving the particular interests of every individual constituent who cares to write to us. Not that we must neglect our individual constituents. Part of our office is to represent the individual; but the most important aspect of our office is to represent the great streams of thought which we try to canalise and direct for the good of our country and of all the people in it.
An Amendment is on the Paper— I hope sincerely it will not be moved—in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield). His argument, it seems to me, is one which is found in so many realms of our public and private affairs — that it is a good thing that there should be some check upon the fixing of salaries, that other people should fix our salaries rather than ourselves; and that, therefore, we ought not to fix these salaries for ourselves but should refer them to the people. I imagine that that is his argument. Well, it is not a practicable proposition. I would call to the minds of hon. Members of the House the many discussions some of us have had in our Smoke Room for the last 20 years and more, as' to what should be the Prime Minister's salary. Everybody knew that £ 5,000 a year was an inadequate salary for the Prime Minister. Everybody knew that some Prime Ministers found it very difficult to manage on that salary, and that it was an embarrassment to them. Every thoughtful person knew that the salary should be raised, but no Prime Minister dared raise his own salary. No Prime Minister dare ask his Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise his salary. Why? Because, human nature being as low as it is, it was morally certain that someone on the other side of the House would take advantage of him at the following Election. So, for many years, we went on knowing perfectly well that this great office of State was underpaid, but unwilling to do what was right in this House, until it So 1263 happened that a particular Prime Minister took the responsibility of raising it because he was not going to enjoy it himself after the Election whatever happened. We had to wait for an accident like that before we got a change which could have been made years before and which was necessary for the well-being of the State.
It is exactly the same with Members' salaries. If you leave this until the next Election, who among us is going to be strong enough to put it in his Election address? It becomes an absurdity. And so we have to take responsibility to ourselves—not voting this to ourselves for ourselves, but voting it to ourselves and to whoever may follow us for the good of our country. I do not want to go over the arguments made so capably by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Oxford, although I affirm my agreement with a great many of them. I will comment however on one, the party argument, which was put by the hon. Member for Oxford. I am as convinced as he is that if there is any party advantage on this matter, which I doubt and which I would deplore—but if there is, it lies with the Conservative Party. They have suffered, they are suffering now, and they will suffer so long as they draw their Members of Parliament from a limited class in the community. Let them therefore take good cheer from the prospect rather than be fearful about it, for it will increase and multiply the prospects of a greater variety of new talent coming to strengthen them in the next Election. I have no other comment to make, except that I most earnestly hope, for the sake of the dignity of this House and the well-being of our Parliament, which I think is of fundamental importance to the happiness and welfare of our people, that my hon. Friends on any side of the House will not challenge this Motion, but, so far as is possible, will give it their unanimous support.
§ 8.43 p.m.
§ Mr. Henderson Stewart (Fife, East)I think it is true to say that there is no substantial opposition anywhere in the House to the Bill designed to increase Ministerial salaries. Least of all would there be opposition from this Bench, because my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir S. Holmes) has more than 1264 once in the past drawn attention to the peculiarly unhappy position of junior Ministers.
§ Earl WintertonI do not think that the hon. Member was in the House when Mr. Speaker gave a Ruling. The hon. Member must not assume that the Debate on the Ministerial Salaries Bill is taking place now, because Mr. Speaker made it clear that it would take place at a later stage.
§ Mr. StewartThe Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to this matter at some length in his speech, and I think I am entitled to make response in a few words. I was endeavouring to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich had more than once initiated Debates in this House drawing attention to the peculiar difficulties of junior Ministers, and we are very happy, therefore, that a change in the right direction should now be made.
As regards our own position as Members, this, as has been said, is a subject of considerable delicacy upon which each one of us must search his own conscience and make up his own mind. It ought not to be a party question, and if I judge the feeling of the House rightly, opinion on this matter varies within almost every group. Nor is that surprising, for we are concerned here not only with the impact of certain facts upon ourselves, but also with the impact of any decision we may take upon the conscience and the sense of fair play of the people. We are concerned with the reactions which our decision may have on the country. We are here not only as elected representatives of the people, but as trustees of the people, particularly as the trustees of the public purse; and, therefore, we are bound to consider whether our action is going to be regarded well by those for whom we act as trustees. The power that resides in this House to determine our own salaries, imposes upon us a responsibility, quite out of keeping with the actual sum of money involved It is a very heavy responsibility. At all costs— and I think that the whole House feels this— we must guard against any suggestion that Members of Parliament are taking advantage of their peculiarly privileged position to feather their own nests.
In reflecting upon the reactions of the public to what we do tonight, there are 1265 one or two points which we have to consider. The first is that, in proposing this increase, we are not doing anything that was in the Election address of any party at the last General Election. No party, in any part of the House, had any mandate for this particular increase. It is not even in the little book which we have so often seen in the hands of hon. Members gesticulating on the other side. At the last Election every candidate who stood— and there were nearly 2,000— knew that the salary here was £ 600 a year, and he offered his services on those terms. That being so, I find it a little difficult to justify this sudden and very substantial proposed increase. I have found it difficult to satisfy public meetings that this increase is justified. We are concerned here, let it be noted, not with full-time salaries. I think that the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) was getting somewhere near to the suggestion that we should pay Members of Parliament such a salary as to make them very nearly self-supporting. That is not the issue tonight. We are concerned here with two things only: Meeting Members' expenses and providing for what the Committee call " maintenance."That is very different from trying to provide full-time salaries.
I think there is a case for some increase. The cost of living has risen since the £ 600 a year figure was first fixed. It has risen, indeed, since the time of the last Election. There is no doubt that since then—I speak from my own experience— there has been a very substantial increase in the cost of the various services which Members have to use— stamps, telegrams, telephones. All these things have added to our expenses very considerably since then. There has also been a considerable increase in Income Tax since the £ 600 a year figure was first introduced. But I confess that I see nothing in the Report here or in the evidence attached to the Report, and I have heard nothing from the Chancellor of the Exchequer today, to justify such a substantial increase as is now suggested. I do not know whether other hon. Members have found that evidence. Personally, I have not found it. Still less have I seen any evidence anywhere of justification for the Committee's proposal that £ 500 a year should be exempt from Income Tax. That was at all times an impossible proposal, which I should certainly have 1266 opposed in the House, and I am glad to find that the Government did not persist in it. As I say, I am not satisfied that a case has been made out for an increase of the size now proposed, bearing in mind the concessions which have recently been made. There is this season ticket with which I have been presented— no doubt other Members have received one too. It enables me to travel from my home to the House here every day, free of cost. That is a concession which is not allowed to any other class of worker.
§ Major Bruce (Portsmouth, North)Did the hon. Member apply for this ticket, or was it given to him?
§ Mr. StewartWill the hon. and gallant Gentleman permit me to continue?
§ Major BruceDid he apply for it?
§ Mr. StewartThe hon. and gallant Member is trying to make a stupid party point, if I may say so. I am trying to take an unprejudiced view of this matter. [Laughter.] It is all right for hon. Members opposite to laugh. If they think that this has no significance for the public outside, that is their business. I am concerned with what the public outside think about the matter, and I have to justify my action to the constituents whom I represent. Perhaps I am doing nothing more than thinking aloud, but I fancy that I am thinking in terms common to a great many hon. Members on all sides of the House. I am concerned to justify to myself, and to the public, what we are doing, and I say that the new concessions we have recently obtained, such as the new season tickets, which are offered to no other class of worker, makes it still harder for me to justify this increase of 66 per cent.
§ Mr. Paget (Northampton)Has it occurred to the hon. Member that whether he accepts this increase or not is entirely optional?
§ Mr. Messer (Tottenham, South)He has accepted the season ticket.
§ Mr. StewartWe are here considering a Government Motion. If we are to approach this problem with dignity we have to treat this as a matter of principle. What any individual Member does is a matter for him to decide. If the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is a much more wealthy man than I am, 1267 and so does not need to accept his salary, that is his business. But it does not alter by one scrap the question we are now considering. What I say, bearing in mind the facts that I have just been mentioning, is that I would almost be persuaded to vote against this Motion, but for the feeling I have that there may be even today some— not, I think, many— hon. Members, colleagues of mine in this House, who, because of the present standard of £ 600 a year, are suffering serious hardship. If that is so, I am not prepared to oppose the Motion. I remember very well—I see the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) on the other side of the House and he, I am sure, remembers it, too— when Mr. Baldwin, as he then was, went into this matter about 1935. He told the House what he had done. He examined the budgets of certain hon. Members, and he satisfied himself on the evidence produced that there were hon. Members of this House who were simply not able to live decently on the salaries they were getting. For that reason he proposed an increase, and I supported him then.
§ Mr. KirkwoodThe hon. Member at one time speaks for the Motion and at another time is against it. Let him tell us, for goodness' sake, what he intends to do.
§ Mr. StewartI was hoping that the hon. Member was doing me the courtesy of following my argument.
§ Mr. MesserEven he cannot perform miracles.
§ Mr. StewartI think every Member will agree that I have proceeded logically from one stage to another. Mr. Baldwin, as he was at that time, satisfied the House that an increase was desirable. The Select Committee say:
Your Committee are in no doubt that the expenses incurred by Members in the course of their Parliamentary duties, both at Westminster and in their constituencies, are at present very high, and that in consequence many Members are finding themselves in a position in which they cannot perform their duties without financial anxiety.If that is true, and the Government, after their own investigation, have come to the same conclusion, it is not for me, or any other Member, to stand in the way of hon. Members receiving the minimum facilities necessary for living, and doing 1268 their job. For that reason, neither I, nor my hon. Friends, would wish to oppose this particular recommendation.But I regret very much that opportunity has not been taken to go a good deal further than the Report recommends. If the Chancellor has a certain amount of money to give away, in order to improve our services here, I would have preferred that some part of the extra £ 400 should be used in a different way. For instance, could not Members of this House be provided with proper sleeping accommodation on nights when it is desirable? There were two or three late Sittings recently, when hon. Members were obliged, because they had nowhere else to go, to sleep in most miserable beds in Committee Rooms. That sort of thing is entirely beneath the dignity of this House. I think it is disgraceful that Members should be obliged to do that sort of thing. Reference is made in the Report to the herding of Members into something of the nature of a hostel. What an absurd suggestion. Nobody wants to do that, but I think it should be within the capacity of this House to have some sort of club, or rooms, or Institution— [Laughter.]— I do not know why Members should laugh—to which Members could go after late Sittings. My last train is 10.30 p.m. If I miss that I have nowhere to go unless to an hotel, and I suppose every hotel is probably closed at midnight.
Again, if we are to do our job properly there is no question whatever that we ought to have the facility, like legislators in other lands, of free travel throughout the length and breadth of this country. There is no doubt that we would benefit ourselves and this House by seeing things that many are at present unable to afford to go to see. In saying that I do not exclude Members' visits to the Dominions. These are the kind of extensions I would prefer to this unjustified, wrong and substantial increase about which we had no previous knowledge. The Government, however, have made this proposal on the basis of the recommendations of the Select Committee, and I find myself unable to oppose it.
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Leslie (Sedgefield)As a Member of the Select Committee, I was pleased to hear the speech of the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), and I hope that hon. Members sitting behind him will take his advice. Those who are opposed 1269 to any increase need not take it, but they ought not to prevent those who really need an increase from having it. The hon, and learned Gentleman the Junior Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) was a veritable Jeremiah. He was moaning all the time. He seemed to think that no increase should be given unless it was brought before the country at a General Election, but apparently he was unaware of the fact that when the £ 400 was originally given, and when subsequently the £ 600 was given, neither of those increases came before the electorate. They were given by a simple Resolution of the House. The speech of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) was a pleasing contrast. The Select Committee certainly received from the hon. Member evidence that was exceedingly valuable, and showed that he had given much thought to the whole subject.
It has to be borne in mind that the Select Committee was representative of all parties in the House, and gave long and careful consideration to the evidence that was submitted. The Report was unanimous. To obtain unanimity in any Committee composed of representatives of different parties calls for compromise. The evidence showed that some witnesses wanted to give much more than the Select Committee finally decided to recommend. Let us take, for instance, one case. One individual, whose name appears at the head of one of the Amendments on the Order Paper, in giving his evidence, declared that a Member of Parliament ought not to be paid less than a town clerk, and he reckoned that the average salary of a town clerk was £ 1,500. He stated also that a town clerk had a car provided by the council. It is strange that the hon. Member's name appears at the head of one of the Amendments. It was suggested by others that £ 500 or £ 600 should be regarded as an expense allowance, to cover postage, and so forth. As the Chairman of the Select Committee pointed out, that suggestion was based upon what is common practice with commercial firms. In view of all the objections that have been made, I think it is perhaps as well that that idea should have been dropped. There was only one witness who considered that the present salary was enough, but he wanted Members of Parliament to take jobs outside. When it was suggested that a miner who was a Member of Parliament could hardly be 1270 expected, after doing five days here, to go down the pit at the weekend, the witness agreed that that was true, but that others ought to take jobs outside. I feel that if a Member takes his work seriously, takes his fair share of Committee work, and attends regularly all the Sittings, he has no time left for outside work. A director of a company may be fortunate enough to receive a salary, but how many directors have we in this House who are in that happy position?
The only other hostile witness was frank enough to say— and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Junior Member for the English Universities also said the same— that every hon. Member should have known what he was coming to. That may have been perfectly true, but his attitude apparently was that if the Member came to this House and found he could not make ends meet he ought to resign. We think otherwise; we think that, if an hon. Member comes to this House and finds it is difficult to make ends meet, it is up to us to find a way to help him out of his difficulty. One thing that impressed me was the position of hon. Members on both sides who represent county constituencies. I think they will bear me out when I say that it is. impossible to do justice to such constituencies on the present salary. Transport facilities are difficult in many counties, and when a constituency embraces a number of villages this means car hire in order to visit those villages, which are very often most insistent that a Member should visit them.
The suggestion that a Member should I submit him self to an inquisition, as is proposed in the Amendment, and should humble himself to submit every detail of his expenses to a special tribunal, certainly savours of the worst form of means test.
§ Mr. E. P. Smith (Ashford)There is absolutely no suggestion of that in the Amendment to which I have attached my name.
§ Mr. LeslieIf a Member has to appear before a committee representing hon. Members of this House and, as it says here, " shall satisfy "Them, how can he satisfy that specially appointed committee if he does not divulge every item of his income? Is the evidence submitted to the Select Committee to be considered of 1271 no value? Surely, we had plenty of evidence to show that there was need for an increase in salary. Is it honestly believed that hon. Members of this House are guilty of faking the returns they send to the Income Tax people? It seems that there must be an implication of something like that or they would not be asked to appear before a committee. I hope that those who have put down the Amendment will think it wise to withdraw it, and that the House will unanimously pass the Motion and agree to the subsequent Measure.
§ 9.8 p.m.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North)As a Member of the Select Committee I should like to say that I am in full accord with the Motion before us this evening. I was rather amazed by the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart) — who I notice has gone away— that it would be better to provide him with improved sleeping accommodation than to provide hon. Members with a sufficient amount of money to make it possible for them to remain Members of this House. We also had to turn" down another suggestion which he mentioned that we should provide money at public expense to enable hon. Members to travel all over England. I am certain that we in the Committee were right in putting down any idea of perquisites. It is far better to be perfectly straight and honest and to say that we do not think the salary which Members of Parliament receive at the present time is sufficient for a great number of them to maintain a proper and decent living so long as they are Members of this House.
No one who listened to the evidence could possibly have come to any other conclusion than we did. I know that I could never have come into this House if there had not been a salary attached to the position. It was not a very large one in those days but it just made the difference. Now, it is apparently the opinion of the public at large that anyone can become a Member of this House as soon as he reaches the age of 21, presuming that he is of sound mind, is not a bankrupt and is not a Peer of the Realm. Many people think it is a very good idea. It is clear that a good many of such people could not possibly be in 1272 a position to support themselves, and their families, if they had them, without having a salary of some kind.
The hon. Member for East Fife suggested that the proposal was far too large an addition. Really, is it? When we take Income Tax off, over and above the expenses, the actual addition to the salary will be very moderate. I rather share. the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) that sooner or later it will probably be necessary still further to increase the salaries of Members of Parliament, if Members are to give as much time to their labours in this House as they do at present. The addition which the Government are now proposing to the salaries is not large, but it will just make the difference between Members being able to do the work and not being able to do it, as is often the case now.
I hope that my hon. Friends will not press their Amendment. I quite appreciate the motive which has led them to suggest that the addition to the salary should be left to the next Parliament. They say that it is not for us to increase our own salaries; who else is to increase them if we do not? That is the only possible means of increasing them. The necessity for the increase has been established by the Report of the evidence that was laid before the Select Committee. I do not see that that is any serious reason why we should postpone this increase until the next Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) said that we could not very well put it into our election addresses that one of our main planks was that we would increase our own salaries.
§ Sir Stanley Reed (Aylesbury)Why not?
§ Sir C. HeadlamWhen the salary was first given to Members of Parliament, it was given by the Parliament which was then sitting. When the increase was given, the same thing happened. Therefore, we arc not acting otherwise than by precedent and I see no reason whatsoever why that Amendment should be put before the House. As for the other Amendment in the name of two of my hon. Friends, I have nothing to say about it except that it is a most intolerable suggestion and one which I hope no one will be willing to accept. We should be 1273 well advised to accept the Government's proposals and to have done with this matter, for the time being, at any rate. There will be criticism— there always is on anything of this kind— but I would be prepared to stand on any platform in the country in support of this Motion.
§ 9.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Kenneth Lindsay (Combined English Universities)I always hesitate to address the House when I am in complete agreement with almost every previous speaker because it is a complete waste of time, but the speech from the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) has provoked me to say these words. I should hate to think that the only speech coming from a Member of one of the privileged University seats was a speech which expressed the views which have passed from his lips this afternoon. I represent, as does he, 40,000 graduates, 75 per cent. of whom have come from primary schools and poor homes. It has been, to my mind, ever since I have been in this House, a matter of some concern that the origins of Members of Parliament have been so obviously unequal as between the two sides. In fact, I have thought more and more that it was a sad day that the book written by Mr. Ross could ever have been written. It describes pretty faithfully how the great majority of Conservative Members come from a very small group of schools; how the very great majority of Liberal Members come from another class of school; and how the overwhelming majority in the last Parliament on the other side had come from a completely different origin, so far as education is concerned. [Interruption.] I know it is very easy to make a few points about some Members of the present Government but the broad fact remains completely true whatever my hon. Friends may say.
§ Earl Winterton rose—
§ Mr. LindsayIt is not what the Noble Lord says but the constant titter from this corner of the House. Another reason that tempts me to say a few words is that, for my sins, I have stood for one or two different constituencies in my time — three of the most hopeless seats for the Labour Party— and on each occasion was defeated by a large and enthusiastic majority. Since then I have been in a previous Government of a combination 1274 of parties. I am perfectly certain from private information that there are many hon. Members— a previous Prime Minister, Earl Baldwin, knew that perfectly well and many a time said so, especially when he was responsible for getting a pension system introduced in the House — living with very great difficulty. All these points have been made so conclusively that there is no point in adding anything further, but I should not like it to be thought that the only voice speaking for the Combined English Universities spoke against this Motion.
§ 9.19 p.m.
§ Mr. Wilson Harris (Cambridge University)Like the Senior Member for the English Universities (Mr. Lindsay), I am impelled to intervene briefly in this Debate by the speech of the Junior Member for the English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss), but before I come to that, may I. express my wholehearted agreement with the last words in the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford City (Mr. Hogg) when he dwelt on the utter inappropriateness and undesirability of submitting a matter of this kind to the test of a General Election? It is easy to marshal plausible arguments based on alleged democratic principles for such a course, but if there is any issue which ought not to be submitted to a General Election, it is an issue like this. There are three reasons for that. One was given by the hon. Member for Oxford, that the business of the electors at a General Election is to pronounce on broad principles and not to concern themselves with minor details. The second reason is that no average constituent is in a position, or could be in a position, to judge what is a right salary for a Member of Parliament, because he could not know the circumstances with which a Member of Parliament has to cope. The third, and perhaps most cogent reason, is the obvious difficulties which such a course would create. Imagine a well to do Member standing against a comparatively indigent Member, as frequently happens. How easy it would be for one to make capital by opposing any idea of an increase in Members' salaries and attempt to gain votes by that unworthy method.
I desire now to say a few words about the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the English Universities who, I am glad to see, has returned to 1275 this House. I thought he was making pretty heavy weather over what is essentially a very simple matter, and his speech, if I may venture to say so, was none the better for starting from a premise that is completely false. The hon. and learned Member, if I remember aright, said that candidates submitted themselves at the General Election knowing that the salary was £ 600 and that nothing had happened since the General Election to change the general outlook. My hon. and learned Friend, through circumstances over which he had no complete control, was detained from the service of this House for the first few months of this Session, and therefore, perhaps, did not completely appreciate the situation which existed. The situation was this: that a great many Members on both sides of the House, though possibly more on one side of the House than the other, who had thrown themselves with some impetuousity into the electoral contest, had in many cases found themselves, to their great astonishment, Members of Parliament, had arrived at Westminster without having fully counted the cost, and had found the cost when they got here something which they could not meet. There is no discredit to anyone for that. It may have been said that they ought to have discovered beforehand what the cost would be. I venture to suggest that that would have been very difficult, if not impossible. It may be said that they could have consulted, as I tried to consult, some Member of a previous Parliament but, in fact circumstances in previous Parliaments— as I understand it, not having been a Member of one— were completely different in many respects from the circumstances that prevail today. [An HON. MEMBER: " Absolutely."] What previous Parliament had to cope with a flood of letters from constituents about demobilisation,' about Class B releases, about Essential Works Orders, about conscientious objectors, which throw on the average Member today a mass of work which I do not believe the ordinary Member of any previous Parliament had to face?
In face of that situation, what course was taken? A Select Committee was appointed, a Committee representative of all parties in this House; a Committee, if I may say so without any disrespect to them— and I am sure the Noble Lord will 1276 not feel I am guilty of any disrespect to him—of very ordinary Members typical of the general run of Members of this House—
§ Earl WintertonI would only observe that as the Committee, in the hon. Gentleman's patronising terms, was composed of very ordinary Members, it is a pity that he was not a Member of it.
§ Mr. HarrisI have no desire to dissent from that proposition, and if the Noble Lord desires it, I will amend my description and say that it consisted of nine ordinary Members and of one extraordinary Member. The Committee produced an admirable Report, a unanimous Report, and nothing struck me more forcibly than a point which has been made already by the hon. Member for Nor-manton (Mr. Smith), and that was the surprisingly favorable reception which this Report met with in the country. It is my business to read more daily papers I suppose, than most hon. Members, and I agreed entirely with the hon. Member for Normanton when he said that with very few exceptions the Press of the country— representing, I imagine, our constituents very largely— was in full accord with the proposals of this Committee. In accordance with those of the Committee, the Government have brought in this Motion, and, although I should be the last to suggest any curtailment of the Debate, it seems to me that we have come to a point where everything has been said that could with advantage be said on this subject, and the best thing would be to get the Motion disposed of and pass on to the next Business.
§ 9.26 p.m.
§ Mr. Stanley Prescott (Darwen)I do not propose to detain the House long, but it is a little unfortunate for the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris), after he has made his observations, to say that all has been said that can be said, and that we should pass on to other Business, for there are several hon. Members in all parts of the House who wish to exercise their rights.
I am very glad that this Debate has not been approached in any part of the House in a party atmosphere. I feel very deeply that this matter we are discussing is a House of Commons matter which concerns hon. Members in all quarters of the House. Having said that, I hope that hon. Mem- 1277 bers opposite will not think I am introducing a party political atmosphere if I say that when the Government made their announcement to set up this Select Committee to consider the remuneration of hon. Members, I felt some bitterness. I would like to tell the House why. I was a Member of the last Parliament, and just before the Election a pamphlet was produced which had a wide circulation in Lancashire in my constituency, and in adjacent constituencies. That pamphlet was not an official publication of the Labour Party, but it had a strong bias, to say the least, in favour of the policies of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Not long before the General Election, there appeared in it a paragraph, or article— call it what you will— the effect and purport. of which, quite shortly, was as follows: "Your Tory M.P. has been getting £12 a week, old age pensioners get ten bob. Vote Labour."
§ Mr. PrescottMay I just finish this part of my speech and then I will gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes?
§ Mr. PrescottI have already stated that it was not a publication of the Labor Party. I equally add that my opponent in. the Election made no reference of that kind. Nevertheless, that pamphlet did follow the policy of hon. Members opposite and it was extremely unfortunate and unnecessary and. its views were quoted quite widely. In the previous Election I got in with a majority of 70, and had not much to play with. We did a lot better this time, and had a majority of nearly 3,000. But it was a very unfortunate observation, and it was repeated quite often in and around Lancashire. Therefore, I think the House will understand why I say tonight that I felt some bitterness that this Select Committee was set up to increase the salaries of hon. Members. That bitterness, which has almost entirely evaporated now, does not detract from the fact that tonight we have to decide what is the right and proper thing to do and that is the real issue before us.
I should say there are two questions for consideration. I do not think anyone would deny in the first place that hon. 1278 Members should be repaid the expenses, the reasonable expenses, which they incur as a result of carrying out their duties here. Indeed, the £ 400 a year was originally introduced to cover expenses, and not by way of salary. If it be accepted that hon. Members of this House should be reimbursed their expenses, the second question arises whether they should be paid a salary, a living wage, on which they can live if they have no outside means. In answer to that second question, I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Oxford City (Mr. Hogg).
If one is to call this country a democracy, as it is, and if it is to be an effective democracy, not only must any man be enabled to come to the House of Commons, but if he gets here, and if he has no others means, he must be provided with something on which to live. I take that view definitely and sincerely. I do not think Members should be provided with a high standard of living, but that they should be given a reasonable standard— [Interruption.] I am trying to make a non-party speech and to deal with the matter objectively If hon. Members wish to make unfriendly interventions I can quite quickly and quite spontaneously make a quite different kind of speech. [An HON. MEMBER: " Make it."] The hon. Member says " Make it. ' I prefer not to do so, but I will make one observation which I think I am entitled to make. There is an Amendment on the Order Paper—I do not agree with it— which suggests that any Member who cannot manage on the present salary shall be entitled to go before a committee, and if he has not sufficient money oil which to live, upon inquiry he can get a further grant of money. [HON. MEMBERS: " Means test."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite, when that was mentioned, shouted " Means test."I quite agree that it is a means test, and I have always inveighed in and out of this House against a means test. But when hon. Gentlemen so glibly say " means test " and " shame," let them realise that old age pensioners still undergo a means test, and will do so under the Bill we have been considering today. Let us also realise that parents whose sons were killed in the war and who want a pension also have— [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member is getting too far from the Motion.
§ Mr. PrescottI do not want to trespass on your good will, Mr. Speaker, or on the kindness of the House. I was drawn into that observation by interventions from the opposite benches.
In my submission to the House, we have now arrived at a point when we are agreed that there must be paid to hon. Members remuneration such as to enable them to have a reasonable standard of life. The question, therefore, arises, and it seems that it is the only question at issue tonight, whether the £ 600 we now receive is adequate under the present circumstances. Personally, I do not think it is adequate if a Member has no other means. I know that I spend practically the whole, sometimes more— it varies— of my Parliamentary salary on secretarial and postal facilities, telegrams and other matters of that kind. Therefore, if an hon. Member is to carry out his duties effectively, that £ 600 should be increased, in order to provide the wherewithal on which he may live. I do not know, and I do not think any hon. Member knows, how many have no other means apart from their Parliamentary salaries. I am not introducing any party point, I have no wish to be difficult, but if is a fact that wealth is not confined to this side of the House. There are hon. Members opposite who have ample means. Company directors have been mentioned. There are many company directors who sit on the opposite benches. There are many hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies opposite who are enabled to make quite a nice livelihood by the legitimate duties they perform outside this House— all honour to them. I do not know what is the number of hon. Members who have no means apart from their Parliamentary salaries. One of the things which is not disclosed in the Report we are considering is that vital fact.
I am prepared to accept it as a fact that there are a number, perhaps a substantial number, of hon. Members who cannot exist on their Parliamentary salary, which is all they have available to them. That being so, we must obviously make better and further provision for them. It would be invidious if one salary was paid to one section of hon. Members and another salary to another. There must be a lump sum for us all. I say quite frankly that I think that the recommendations of this Report are right, and I shall go into the Lobby, if there be a Division, in support of them. An hon. 1280 Member referred to the question of inflation. What troubles me is that, apart from inflation, I think the country is going to be faced in the fairly near future with considerable demands for increases in wages. Many of those demands will have to be resisted. It is going to be slightly difficult for this House of Commons to resist some of them when we have very substantially increased our own salaries. That is one criticism I would make about this Motion being introduced now.
There is another criticism which I would make. I hope I shall not be out of Order in mentioning this. It is within the recollection of hon. Members—I am not patting myself on the back— that like many other hon. Members in this House, notably those on the opposite benches, I have always championed the cause of old age pensioners. I find it rather difficult, in present circumstances, to increase my own salary when there are certain sections of the community to whom I have made undertakings and to whom hon. Gentle men opposite—
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member should not go into details about everybody who might otherwise get increases of salary. There must be a limitation.
§ Mr. PrescottI do not wish to trespass upon your kindness, Sir, or upon that of the House. I hope I have treated this matter quite fairly. I think I am entitled to say that if the position had been reversed at the last Election and we had been in the great majority and had then made these proposals, I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been quite so kind to us in the Debate as we have been tonight. I conclude, therefore, by saying that I myself agree that the present salary must be increased. I think it right and I shall vote for it if this matter goes to a division. I regret that it should have been thought necessary to introduce this Resolution as this time. There is one point on which I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Member for Oxford City, and that is that I hope by and large hon. Members of this House will not become purely and solely professional politicians.
§ 9.37 p.m.
§ Mr. Nally (Bilston)I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Prescott) who, with great dialectical skill, kept himself as reason- 1281 ably in touch as he could with the general trend of thought in the House but at the same time has given himself a magnificent alibi in order to speak to the electors of Darwen on this question. It was a completely non-party speech of the curious kind that the hon. Member is perfectly entitled to make. We can rely upon him to use it with his usual skill to the best advantage in his division. We may anticipate that he will do that and just how he will do it. I want to say one or two words about the real meaning of what we are discussing. We are agreed on all sides that this is a new Parliament, consisting of a new kind of people. That refers not only to this side of the House. The change is coming on the opposite side as well. I have some knowledge of what the Conservative divisional associations are doing. One has contacts as a journalist with what is happening. It is quite clear that the Conservative Party have learned a lesson from the events of the last General Election. One of the lessons which they have learned is that younger able candidates, very often without much money, are essential for the salvation of their party— if there is to be any salvation for it— which I very much doubt.
It is true that the tendency of all parties is towards younger candidates, tested by the divisional associations on grounds of ability and irrespective of whether they have any cash behind them or not. The real problem is that of endeavouring to see that an hon.s Member shall come into this House on account of ability and irrespective of means. The complexion and outlook of this side of the House has changed very greatly. Today, there are a minority of what are called trade union Members. The majority of hon. Members —I speak subject to correction on this— are very much younger. I think the average age of hon. Members of this Party at the moment is between 43 and 45. It is also true that we have, in the Party on this side, among back benchers supporting the Government, a large group of what can be called middle-class people, but with this important difference —and it is essential to remember it in discussing this Motion—that these hon. Members who are now described as middle-class are not, in the majority of cases, the middle-class which is generally conceived as being middle-class by some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. 1282 They are, in fact, the first generation of working-class parents with secondary and university education. The result is that, although they come into this House, by nominal standards, as middle class, so far as background, savings, parenthood and amount of capital are concerned, they are not middle class at all.
§ Major Guy Lloyd (Renfrew, Eastern)On a point of Order. What has middle class got to do with this Motion?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman is entitled to develop his argument in his own way.
§ Mr. NallyI apologise to the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite for not making the point clear to him. The point I am trying to make is that, although by normal, conventional standards, hon. Members on this side would be regarded as middle class, they have in many cases no resources whatsoever behind them and therefore do not fit into the term " middle class " as it is normally used. Let us face the facts plainly. I have other sources of income apart from my House of Commons salary, but I want to put forward some specific cases of others who have not.
First, I put Case A. For the first six weeks in London, an hon. Member of this House lived in a curious place in Euston Road at a cost of 5s. 6d. a night because he could not afford to pay more than that. I want to give Case B, that of an hon. and gallant Member of this House, with a record of distinguished service, who came into this House direct from the Forces, and who was proceeding, in November of last year, to sell the house that he and his wife had bought in order to meet the expenses of continuing to be a Member of Parliament. Take a third case, that of an hon. and gallant Member of this House, with an equally distinguished war record, in this case, in the R.A.F., who was taking steps, on his savings running out, to borrow money from his father in order to continue his work in this House. That is an incredible situation, and we really cannot have it. I am very grateful, on behalf of these hon. Members, for the speeches of the hon. (Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and the Senior Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Lindsay). They were both thoughtful speeches worthy of the issue we are discussing.
1283 I conclude on this note. It is a delicate matter that we are debating—this raising of our own salaries. I have talked in my own constituency about it, and have stated, plainly and frankly, what the position is. The House of Commons is no longer a kind of convalescent home for trade union leaders as was sometimes said. It is equally, I hope, no longer a place to which wealthy company directors can come because of their ability to buy up the divisional Tory associations in the country. In short, the character of the House has changed as the country has changed. I believe that the Motion before it will give an opportunity to young men, irrespective of political opinion, of coming into the House and serving it faithfully, well and efficiently. That is the most important thing which has hitherto not been provided, and, therefore, I trust the House will give unanimous support to the Motion now before it.
§ 9.46 p.m.
§ Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone)I beg to move, in line 3, to leave out " day of April nineteen hundred and forty-six," and to insert:
Sitting Day of the next Parliament.This Amendment is not the kind of Amendment which one often gets on the Second Reading of a Bill to the effect that "The Bill be read a Second time upon this day six months."That is not its purpose; its purpose is to postpone from this Parliament to the next the implementing of the Report of the Select Committee or, rather, of the Motion now before the House. We agree that it is desirable that emoluments of hon. Members should be increased to £ 1,000, or some such similar substantial sum, in order that they may carry on their work in an efficient manner. The hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) was incorrect in assuming that this Amendment meant that the decision which will be made today was to be left until after the next General Election. He was wrong to assume that it is our intention that this should be put before the people at the next Election. We agree that the Motion should be passed now, but not implemented until the next Parliament.Certain hon Members have come to me and said, "This Amendment which you are moving is a very unpopular thing. Why are you doing it?"The 1284 fact that a thing happens to be unpopular is not a leason for not moving it. Other hon. Members have come to me and said, " Why are you doing this? It will neither help you nor lose you any votes at the next Election because, by that time, all this will have been forgotten "—as, indeed, it will. Again, I say, surely we can take action in this House without always thinking whether or not we are to gain or lose votes. I am moving this Amendment tonight because I agree so much with what the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) said.
I believe that the dignity and esteem in which Parliament is held are worthy of the utmost support of this House. I know that some hon. Members agree with me on this point and that some differ, but I believe that the dignity and esteem of Parliament, and its prestige, will be lowered, if it is said of us that one of the first things we did when we were returned to Parliament was to increase our own salaries.
§ Mr. KirkwoodThe first thing we did was to nationalise the Bank of England.
§ Sir W. WakefieldVery well, then, one of the first things we did before the first year of Parliament was out was to increase our own salaries. I know that hon. Members have made the point that it is only Members of this House who can increase their own salaries. Of course it is. But do not let us increase our salaries. Let us talk about an increase for the next Parliament in which we do not know whether we will be sitting. If we do that we will maintain the honour, prestige and dignity of Parliament in a way which we are not now doing. Would an increase in our salaries be consistent with some of the things which are happening today, such as were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Pres-cott) who referred to the fact that officers' and widows' pensions, etc., have not been increased? There is feeling in the country about this. I have two sons-in-law, both in the Services. One is in the Royal Navy and the other is in the Army. As a result of recent so-called increases, which to them, because of their ranks, were not increases, they said to me, " We see you are greatly to increase your pay while ours has been decreased."These are important points which we in this House should not overlook.
1285 The Chancellor has said how important it is to maintain the standard of living and to avoid inflation. One of the ways of creating inflation is for wages and salaries to continue to increase. Is it not right that we should give a lead in this matter? How can we give a lead when we increase our own salaries? It will be within the recollection of many hon. Members that in the financial crisis of 1931 this House reduced Members emoluments to £ 360. That ought not to be forgotten, and I suggest that rather than increase our emoluments, we ought to consider reducing them as a lead to the rest of the country. I know that hardship exists among certain Members, and because I am not affected in the same degree, it is difficult and embarrassing for me to move this Amendment. It is not a happy or a pleasant task, but because it is not happy or pleasant we should not shirk doing it. I do not know whether it is possible during this Parliament for some scheme to be arranged whereby hon. Members who are in difficulties can be helped from the Pension Fund which, I understand, is in very great funds. With increased salaries in the next Parliament we could always contribute more if need be. I throw out that suggestion as one way in which that difficulty might be overcome.
I understand there are certain objections to this Amendment. The first is that we cannot commit the next Parliament. If that is a technical objection my Amendment can easily be altered to apply to the last day of this Parliament. I do not think that is a valid objection. Another objection is that unless salaries are increased, new candidates of the required caliber will not be able to come forward. Surely, that is not so, because new candidates will know that in the new Parliament they will receive £ 1,000 a year. Another objection is that expenses are now very much greater than they were. I do not think that that is so since the General Election. We all entered as candidates at the last Election knowing what our emoluments were to be and being, as Members of Parliament, responsible individuals, also knowing what our liabilities were likely to be. Surely it will not be suggested that anybody will lightheartedly take up the responsibilities and duties of a Member of Parliament without, first of all, considering what he or she is to get and what the expenses may be? There has been no considerable increase in ex- 1286 penses during the last 12 months, and so I cannot see the validity of that objection.
Again, there has been the objection that hon. Members cannot do their duties efficiently at the present rate of emoluments. Well, coal miners, dockyard workers and many other people also think that they cannot do their duties efficiently, and want an increase in wages. So I do not see that there is any validity in that objection. It has also been suggested, that if we vote for this Amendment we are in duty bound not to take any increased salary. Well, suppose some of us in this House disagreed with the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Suppose the Chancellor decided that he was going to reduce the tax on beer and some of us, while delighted from a personal point of view, nevertheless, from the national point of view thought his decision was wrong. Should we take advantage of the reduction in the tax on beer? Of course, we should.
§ Mr. DaltonHave an extra pint, and why not?
§ Sir W. WakefieldSo I do not think there is any validity in that objection. This is a democracy; we make our protests, we then accept the ruling of the majority. I conclude by saying that I have moved this Amendment because I believe that it is desirable that this House should not, as a matter of principle, vote within its lifetime an increase in its own salary. Let us vote the increase, but let it be for our successors and not for ourselves.
§ 9.58 p.m.
§ Mr. Hollis (Devizes)I beg to second the Amendment.
As the Chancellor and other hon. Members have said, this is a somewhat delicate question, and nothing could be more embarrassing for me, or I am sure for other hon. Members, than that I should speak at length on my own personal affairs, so I will dismiss that aspect of the matter in a couple of sentences. In the first place, I should like to say that I am by no means a rich man; I am not a payer of Surtax, nor am I the recipient of any inherited wealth, and therefore the emoluments I receive are by no means a matter of indifference to me. As for the second and purely personal point, I had not the intention to refer to it, but as the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. 1287 Wakefield) and the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) did refer to it, I will say simply for myself, and passing no judgment on any other hon. Member whose personal circumstance may differ from mine, that I have already given a public pledge that, in the event of this extra money being voted, I shall not myself take it.
Having got that out of the way, may I turn to the more general issue? I am the more emboldened to speak a few words because what seems to me to be the all-important point, with all due respect to the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris), has not been much emphasised. The point that strikes me as all-important is that of timeliness. There is nothing sacrosanct in the figure of £ 600 a year, and I have no objection, in principle, to the sum being raised to £ 1,000. The only question present to my mind is whether this is a timely moment for doing it.
This increase has been defended broadly upon two grounds, slightly different from one another. On the one hand some hon. Members say it is justified in order to keep pace with the rising cost of living. My answer to that is that made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) in the Budget Debate when he pointed out that the official figure for the rise in the cost of living was 31 per cent. But we are not asking for ourselves for an increase of 31 per cent., but for an increase of 66 per cent. I am perfectly agreeable to accept the argument used by many hon. Members that the rise in the cost of living has been very much greater than 31 per cent. But it is extremely dangerous to Parliamentary prestige that while an increase of 31 per cent. is quoted for the general public the figure of 66 per cent. should be used for our own purposes. The other ground upon which this is defended is that the salary is. in any case, inadequate. There again I do not quarrel with hon. Members who maintain that argument as a general proposition. I am simply arguing the timeliness. Is this the time, when every day we are preaching about the dangers of inflation, when every day we are appealing to workers not to press for wage increases until the country has got back on its feet, to put ourselves at the front of the queue for increases? I will read a passage that puts this point as well as I have ever seen it put: 1288
Before the war, when there was general unemployment, all wage increases that could be extracted by the Trade Unions from unwilling employers were not only to the advantage of the workers concerned but also to the advantage of every one else as well What, then, is the effect of an increase in wages at the present time? The truth is that while extreme shortage lasts wage increases for one section of industry are liable to raise costs of production and be passed on in higher prices to the consumers, so that the original increase is at the expense of workers in other sections of industry as well as at the expense of citizens as a whole. And once prices begin going up there may be a general demand for wage increases to meet the increased cost of living, the further wage increases raise the cost of living again, and the vicious spiral is at work. In such circumstances wage increases may even be positively harmful to the community. That is why, from the point of view of the nation, restraint should be exercised about pressing for indiscriminate wage increases.That pamphlet was issued by Transport House to the trade unionists of this country. It is entitled "Fair Shares of Scarce Goods."
§ Mr. GallacherIs the hon. Member reading that passage in order to prove that, if we are to get an increase in salary, the price of HANSARD will go up?
§ Mr. HollisThat was not my purpose. If the hon. Member will wait he will see what I was seeking to prove. My purpose was, surely, a very much clearer one. If we give increases to ourselves at a time when we might be under the necessity of refusing increases to other people we are putting ourselves in an extremly difficult position. My point is whether this is a timely moment for such a policy. The only strong argument on the other side —and it is a very strong argument indeed —is that there are certain hon. Members in this House who find real difficulty in carrying on their work in the present circumstances. That is an argument with which we must all be entirely sympathetic. I would like to put it in a slightly different form from that in which some hon. Members have put it. Sometimes people say— it seems to be a rather strange way of putting it—that whether it be a good thing or a bad thing that Parliament should be a fulltime occupation, at any rate, we have to face the fact that it has become so.
It seems to me that the fact is exactly the opposite; that is to say, whether it be a good thing or a bad thing that it should be a full-time occupation, it ob- 1289 viously is not, as a matter of fact, a full-time occupation, because there is a large number of Members in all quarters of the House who do carry on other occupations. Anyone would be very bold who argued that the contributions of those Members to the life of Parliament were less valuable and less effective than those of the average hon. Member, In fact I should be inclined to think anybody who has sufficient ability to serve his country in this House, can find some way or another of slightly adding to his remuneration but I am more concerned with another and more important class of person—the person who prefers not to receive remuneration because he fears to compromise his integrity.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman put the point of the Amendment admirably at the beginning of his speech but he is now departing from it. The point of this Amendment is timing. It is the timing only that we can discuss. We cannot go into the subject generally.
§ Mr. HollisWith respect, Mr. Speaker, I was going to refer to the very valuable evidence given before the Committee by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. A. Edward Davies). I have not the pleasure of his acquaintance, and so I do not know whether he is in his place or not; but he was the only person who gave evidence before the Committee who was in the position of being entirely dependent upon his salary, and one reason for which I am supporting the Amendment may be found in the words he spoke in his evidence before the Committee. Having described the difficulties of the position, he said:
I do not say some amendment in out monetary payment ought not to become operative during this Parliament, but I should think there is much to be said for the provision which says that it shall operate at a subsequent date, perhaps in the next Parliament.That the hon. Member should be willing to consider postponement seemed to me a very strong argument for postponement.There is another point. Some hon. Members have said there is nothing improper in our effecting a change now because there is the precedent of 1937. I do not want to offend by developing that point, but my answer to it is that many people believe today—I happen to be one of them—that it is not invariably valuable to balance the Budget, and that sometimes, when there is unem- 1290 ployment and under-production for instance, it is desirable to put out new money. But there are other times when conditions are the opposite. The period of 1937 was one in which to put out new money, a period in which it might not be a great harm to put out some of it to Members of Parliament. But the position is exactly the opposite now. Therefore, in seconding my hon. Friend's Amendment, all I am insisting upon is the element of time.
In a few years' time, when we are all more prosperous, when every class in the community is more prosperous, there is no reason in the world why the salary of Members of this House should not be advanced, in the same way as the salaries of others and in accordance with the general standard of living of the country. We should be the last persons, so it seems to me, now to increase our salaries, and we should in courtesy see that we deliver the goods of this new world we are here to create to the rest of the community, before we take them ourselves. We should take a lowly rather than a high place in the queue.
§ 10.10 p.m.
§ Mr. Baldwin (Leominster)I rise to support the Amendment. It has caused me some difficulty to reach this decision. At this time we should not take steps to raise our own salaries. After all, we took on a contract 12 months ago, and we should put up with its conditions for some further time. If this proposal had been suggested in two years' time, it would have been quite a different thing. My decision to support the Amendment was principally reached because I am convinced that at some time someone will be standing at that Box to deal with the question of inflation. Someone will be saying that wages must not rise further. The Government are allowing wages to increase day by day, and this proposal is, in fact, a proposal to raise our own wages. When the time comes, we shall have to tell the wage earners of this country, that for their own salvation their wages must be " pegged " and I think that we shall put ourselves in a very poor light by supporting this proposal at this stage. Sooner or later this rise in wages has to be stopped, or else the £ will be in the same position as the Mark was in Germany after the last war. We are in an inflationary period. It may be said that it can and 1291 will be controlled, but it will not be controlled if we continue to raise the cost of wages.
§ Mr. SpeakerThis is hardly relevant to the Amendment, which deals with timing and nothing else.
§ Mr. BaldwinI was endeavouring to support the Amendment, which provides that no immediate rise should be made in the salaries of hon. Members of this House. I feel sure that if we want to show an example to the people of this country, the right thing to do is not to increase our salaries at this stage. That is why I suggest it should be put off until some further time has elapsed.
§ 10.14 p.m.
§ Mr. E. L. Gandar Dower (Caithness and Sutherland)I will detain the House for only a very short time, because this matter has been under discussion now for nearly three hours, but I wish to give my reasons for supporting the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield). I believe that the duties of a Member in this House cannot be genuinely performed under £ 1,000 per annum, but at the same time—I must stress time in my remarks—I do not believe this is the time to raise our salaries.
I would emphasise that at this time there are many pensioners left with incomes of £300 to £400 a year who find it very difficult to live as they used to do a few years ago When at this time there are so many rises in wages, we cannot support a rise in our own. It will be timely to consider a rise at the next Election. People will then have had time to consider whether a rise in our salaries is or is not justified. I would remind the House that, as so many clubs have been bombed, this is one of the few remaining clubs to which it is a privilege to belong, where we have valuable contacts with people of all views, and we should be prepared to make sacrifices to belong to it.
§ 10.16 p.m.
§ Mr. Gallacher (Fife, West)I was much touched by the argument advanced on behalf of this Amendment that the proposed increase is untimely, and that somehow or other it would have an inflationary effect. Nothing could show a greater 1292 lack of understanding of this important question of inflation. Inflation can be caused by a very large increase of spending. But increasing Members' salaries does not mean widespread increase of spending. Inflation can also be caused by the vicious spiral, and that, as I indicated very clearly in a question to the seconder of the Amendment, does not work in relation to this particular matter. Our salaries could be increased right now, and our products would not go up in price. The question we should be asking is not whether the increase is to be today, tomorrow, next year, or next Parliament, but whether the Members are worth the money. I am reminded of an elderly gentleman, not unknown to Members of this House, Mr. George Bernard Shaw, who, at Bow Street, when standing bail for a certain gentleman was asked by the magistrate: "Are you worth £200? " Mr. Shaw said, "I would not like to say that, but I have got £ 200."The question we have to ask is: " Are hon. Members worth it? " My last sentence, and it is an important one, is that when I look at the Members on this side of the House, I am satisfied that they are worth it; but when I look at the Members on the other side, I am very doubtful.
§ The SpeakerWe have had over three hours' discussion on this matter. It is, after all, a free vote, and we surely do not need to have unlimited speeches.
§ 10.19 p.m.
§ Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite (Holderness)May I submit, Mr. Speaker, that as speeches in favour of the Amendment have been made from this side of the House and as I happen to be opposed to the Amendment, I should have an opportunity to express very briefly my reasons for being unable to give a silent vote on this issue? If I find myself on the same ground as the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) I hasten to assure the hon. Member that that is not because I am making any application for affiliation to the Communist Party. As a Member of the Select Committee, which owed so much to the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Tom Smith), and which sat for many days considering these matters, may I say with the greatest good temper to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) and the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) that they and those who think like them missed 1293 not.one bus but two. The first opportunity they had for putting their view arose when the Motion for setting up the Select Committee was before the House. That was the first bus. The second bus was the opportunity of appearing before the Select Committee, an invitation having been sent to every hon. Member of this House, of which a great number availed themselves. The evidence of those hon. Members was considered with great patience for many days, and the arguments put forward were carefully investigated.
§ Sir W. WakefieldI replied to the invitation to give evidence before the Committee, and I sat waiting to be called.
§ Lieut.-Commander BraithwaiteI am quite sure the hon. Member did, but how can one call on a vacuum? The hon. Member submitted no memorandum. We heard— and the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) can endorse this— the views of individual Members like the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and others who had something to submit to the Committee. It is rather late in the day now to put forward this point of view.
§ Sir W. WakefieldWhy have a Debate at all?
§ Lieut.-Commander BraithwaiteIf the hon. Member puts down an Amendment and moves it, the reason for having a Debate is to give an opportunity to others to refuse it. What is the point of having a Select Committee? I hope the hon. Gentleman is not going to lapse into irrelevancies. To my mind the reason for the urgency of this matter, and the reason why we should reject this Amendment to postpone the increase in Members' salaries, rests upon two main pillars. First, I refute the argument that we knew what we were letting ourselves in for when we stood for election or re-election at the General Election. It is said that the new Members who came here knew the conditions. This happens to be my third Parliament. I did not know what I was letting myself in for at the General Election.
§ Sir W. WakefieldA complete vacuum.
§ Lieut.-Commander BraithwaiteAnd I will give the reasons. This Parliament is not like previous Parliaments. We are not engaged in Party arguments tonight, 1294 but I certainly did not realise we were to be driven 14 hours a day by the Leader of the House. I did not realise that Standing Committees were going to sit with the intensity with which they are sitting with three or four main Bills going through concurrently. May I add that I had not the slightest conception that there was to be the increase which has been taken place in my post bag? It has been argued that this is transitory, and that the same thing happened in 1919 and 1920 when demobilisation was going on. That may be, but I was not here then. But whether that be so or not, I suggest that that argument falls to the ground, for this reason: Whatever may be the merit or demerits of nationalisation or State control, this can be admitted—that the wider the field of State control, the greater becomes a Member's correspondence. However efficiently our industries may be run by the State, a great many people will have complaints to make, and cases to submit to us. That is something I did not anticipate. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for St. Maryle-bone anticipated that, but I did not. I believed that our side would win the Election; perhaps he anticipated the awful thing that did happen.
I am particularly anxious to put two points before this vote is taken. Whatever my hon. Friends who support the Amendment may do, I hope there is one reason which will not weigh with them. I have looked at the Order Paper, and I think it would be a pity if a number of Members who have the good fortune to reside in what may be described as the upper Surtax levels, and for whom this increase will mean just " chicken feed ' —or, as the right hon. Gentleman has now re-entered the Chamber perhaps I should say, " Chancellor feed "—took up the attitude which is known, in Service parlance, as " Damn you, Jack, I'm all right."I hope nobody will vote tonight on those grounds. Something has been said about what our constituents will think. I know what my constituents would think if I endeavoured to get the best of both worlds tonight, by voting for a postponement of salary increase, and then going with outstretched hands to the Fees Office. I think the proper course is that suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) at the beginning of this Debate. The tax on a pint of beer is a tax which is in- 1295 curred when you drink the beer. There has never been any obligation on Members to draw a single penny of their salary. I believe the Chancellor, who has been here longer than I have been, will recall cases of Members who, on what may be described as conscientious grounds, returned their salaries to the Treasury —
§ Mr. DaltonYes, some have done that.
§ Lieut.-Commander BraithwaiteI believe there were some who, on the last occasion when there was an increase, drew £400 a year, and did not take the extra £200. That is the honourable course for those who object to it. There is no compulsion. If they feel that this is wrong, and if they are so fortunate as to be able to get on without it, surely their remedy is clear. I do not propose to do that. I believe this increase is overdue, and I will tell the House, briefly, why I think so, and why it is urgent. Sometimes I walk through the Library late at night, and I see Members, not confined to any one party, writing letters in longhand at 11 o'clock, and taking copies. That tells me immediately, without having any interest in their correspondence, that they are being debarred from spending the necessary time in the Chamber listening to Debates, from a proper study of the OFFICIAL REPORT and White Papers, from proper Parliamentary reading, and from keeping up to date with political opinion by reading various journals which we ought to study, particularly those published by our political opponents. One often gets a theme for a speech in this way. But this cannot be done under present conditions.
Then, a Member should have an efficient secretary. A good secretary is worth
§ all of £250 a year, and cheap at the price. Postage has risen to an enormous extent, and I must ally myself with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds on this matter. My right hon. Friend—if I may still call him so despite this temporary difference of opinion—said he was making a difficult speech. So am I. It is always rather embarrassing for a Member to find applause for his remarks coming from the opposite benches, while there is silence or implied disapproval among his own friends. [HON. MEMBERS: " Not all."] It is a difficult situation; I am sure the Foreign Secretary knows that if nobody else does. As one who was on the Select Committee may I say finally that I believe the Report presents an honourable solution of an extremely difficult problem. It was a unanimous Report of men of differing views and temperaments—it would be difficult to select a wider range of opinions in the House than was represented on the Committee. Its recommendations are such as will enable us to perform our duties with dignity but without luxury. I therefore propose to go into the Lobby in support of this immediate increase, and to defend it in my constituency, and I believe my people will understand it. I believe they will understand that I am doing something to defend this Parliamentary system which has survived so many storms. Hitler tried to pull us down, and so did many others. But there is only one thing that could smash the British House of Commons and that is for us to bang, bolt and bar our doors against men of ability, just because they are without financial resources.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 345; Noes, 26.
1299| Division No. 189.] | AYES. | [10.32 p.m. |
| Adams, Richard (Balham) | Balfour, A. | Boothby. R |
| Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith. South) | Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. | Bottomley, A. G. |
| Agnew, Cmdr. P, G. | Barstow, P. G | Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W |
| Aitkan, Hon. Max | Bartlett, V. | Bowen, R. |
| Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) | Barton, C. | Bower, N |
| Allan, Scholefield (Crewe) | Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. | Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh) | Bechervaise, A. E. | Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. |
| Allighan, Garry | Bennett, Sir P. | Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) |
| Alpass, J. H. | Benson, G. | Braddock, T. (Mitcham) |
| Anderson, A. (Motherwell) | Berry, H. | Brook, D. (Halifax) |
| Andersen, F (Whitehaven) | Bing, G. H. C. | Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) |
| Attor, Hon. M. | Binns, J. | Brown, George (Belper) |
| Attewell, H. C. | Blackburn, A. R. | Brown, T. J. (Ince) |
| Aweary, S. S. | Blenkinsop, Capt. A. | Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. |
| Ayles, W. H. | Blyton, W. R. | Burden, T. W. |
| Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. | Boardman, H. | Burke, W. A. |
| Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) | Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. | Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T. |
| Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'td'n) | Hannan, W. (Maryhill) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. |
| Byers, Lt.-Col. F. | Hardman, D. R. | Morley, R. |
| Callaghan, James | Hardy, E. A. | Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.) |
| Carson, E. | Harris, H. Wilson | Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) |
| Castle, Mrs. B. A. | Harrison, J. | Mort, D. L. |
| Champion, A. J. | Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. | Moyle, A. |
| Chater, D. | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Murray, J, D. |
| Chetwynd, Capt. G. R. | Haworlh, J. | Nally, W. |
| Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G | Headlam, Lieut-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C | Neal, H. (Claycross) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) | Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) |
| Cobb, F. A. | Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) | Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) |
| Cocks, F. S. | Herbison, Miss M. | Nicholson, G. |
| Coldrick, W | Hewitson, Capt. M | Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. |
| Collick, P. | Hicks, G. | Noel Buxton, Lady |
| Collindridge, F. | Hinchingbrooke, Viscount | O'Brien, T. |
| Collins, V. J. | Hobson, C. R | Oldfield, W. H. |
| Colman, Miss G, M | Hogg, Hon. Q. | Oliver, G. H |
| Comyns, Dr. L. | Holman, P. | Orbach, M. |
| Conant, Maj. R. J. E. | Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth) | Orr-Ewing, I, L |
| Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. | Horabin, T. L, | Paget, R. T. |
| Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.) | House, G. | Palmer, A. M. F, |
| Corbett, Lieut-Col. U. (Ludlow) | Hoy, J. | Pargiler, G. A. |
| Coded, Dr. J. | Hubbard, T. | Parker, J. |
| Corvedale, Viscount | Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.) | Peake, Rt. Hon. O. |
| Cove, W. G. | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Pearson, A. |
| Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. | Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) | Peart, Capt. T. F |
| Crossman, R. H S. | Hurd, A | Perrins, W. |
| Crosthwaite-Eyre. Col. O. E | Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme) | Plaits-Mills, J. F. F. |
| Daggar, G. | Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) | Popplewell, E. |
| Daines, P. | Irving, W. J. | Porter, E. (Warrington) |
| Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A | Prescott. Stanley |
| Davies, Edward (Burslem) | Janner, B. | Price-White, Lt.-Col D |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Jeger, G. (Winchester) | Pritt, D. N. |
| Davies, Haydn (St. Panoras, S.W.) | Jeger, Dr. S. W- (St. Pancras, S.E.) | Pryde, D. J. |
| Davies, S. O. (Msrthyr) | Jennings, R. | Pursey, Cmdr. H. |
| Dmr, G. | John, W. | Raikes, H. V. |
| Delargy, Captain H. J. | Janes, D. T. (Hartlepools) | Randall, H E. |
| Dobbie, W. | Jones, P. Asterley (Hitehin) | Ranger, J. |
| Dodds, N. N. | Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W | Rankin, J. |
| Dribers T. E. h. | Keenan, W. | Reeves, J. |
| Dumpleton, C. W. | Kenyon, C. | Reid, T. (Swindon) |
| Durbin, E. F M. | Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E. | Ridealgh, Mrs. M. |
| Dye, S. | Kinley, J. | Robens, A. |
| Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. | Kirby, B. V. | Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth) |
| Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty) | Kirkwood, D. | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) |
| Edwards, John (Blackburn) | Lancaster, Col. C. G | Rogers, G. H. R. |
| Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) | Lang, G. | Royle, C. |
| Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) | Lavers, S | Sargood, R. |
| Evans, E, (Lowestoft) | Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J. | Scollan, T. |
| Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) | Lee, Miss J. (Cannock) | Segal, Dr. S |
| Fairhurst, F. | Leslie, J. R, | Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M. |
| Farthing, W. J. | Levy, B. W. | Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes) |
| Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.) | Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens) |
| Follick, M. | Lindgren, G, S. | Silverman, J. (Erdington) |
| Foot, M. M. | Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.) | Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) |
| Forman, J. C. | Lindsay, M. (Solihull) | Simmons, C. J. |
| Foster, W. (Wigan) | Lipson, D. L. | Skeffington, A. M. |
| Fraser, Sir 1. (Lonsdale) | Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. | Skeffington-Lodge, T. C |
| Fraser, T. (Hamilton) | Logan, D. G. | Skinnard, F. W. |
| Freeman, Maj. J (Watford) | Low, Brig. A. R W | Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester) |
| Gage, Lt.-Col. C | Lyno, A. W. | Smith, E. P. (Ashford) |
| Gaitskell, H. T. N | McEntee, V. La T | Smith, Ellis (Stoke) |
| Gallacher, W. | Mack, J. D. | Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) |
| Ganley, Mrs. C. S. | McKay, J. (Wallsend) | Smith, T. (Normanton) |
| George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke) | Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.) | Snow, Capt. J. W. |
| George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) | Maclean, N. (Govan) | Sorensen, R. W. |
| Gibbtns, J. | MoLeavy, F. | Soskice, Maj. Sir F. |
| Gibson, C. W | MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) | Steele, T. |
| Gilzean, A. | Macpherson, T. (Romford) | Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.) |
| Glanville, J. E. (Consett) | Mallalieu, J. P. W. | Stakes, R. R. |
| Gooch, E. G. | Mann, Mrs. J. | Stross, Dr. B. |
| Gordon-Walker, P. C. | Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) | Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray) |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield) | Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) | Sutcliffe, H. |
| Greenwood, A. W. J. (Haywood) | Manningham-Buller, R. E. | Swingler, S. |
| Grenfell, D. R. | Marples, A. E. | Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne) |
| Grey, C. F. | Marshall, F. (Brightside) | Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A. (P'dd't'n. S.) |
| Grierson, E. | Maude, J. C. | Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) |
| Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) | Mayhew, C. P. | Taylor, R. J (Morpeth) |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J, (Llanelly) | Medland, H. M. | Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) |
| Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Most Side) | Middleton, Mrs. L. | Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) |
| Gunter, Capt. R. J | Mitchison, Maj. G. R. | Thomas, John R. (Dover) |
| Guy, W. H. | Molson, A. H. E | Thomas, George (Cardiff) |
| Hale, Leslie | Montague, F. | Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.) |
| Hall, W. G. (Coins Valley) | Moody, A. S. | Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth) |
| Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton) | Warbey, W N | Williams Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley) |
| Tiffany, S. | Watkins, T. E | Williams, W. R. (Heston) |
| Timmons, J. | Weitzntan D. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Titterington, M. F. | Wells, P. L. (Faversham) | Wills, Mrs. E. A. |
| Tolley, L. | Wells, W. T. (Walsall) | Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl |
| Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G | Wheatley, Colonel M. J | Wise, Major F. J. |
| Turner-Samuels, M. | White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.) | Woodburn, A. |
| Ungoed-Thomas, L | White, J. B. (Canterbury) | Yates, V F. |
| Usborne, Henry | Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. | Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick) |
| Vornon, Mai W. F. | Wilkes, Maj. L. | Young, Sir R. (Newton) |
| Viant, S. P. | Wilkins, W. A. | Zilliacus, K. |
| Walkden, E. | Willey, F. T (Sunderland) | |
| Walker, G. H | Willey, O. G. (Cleveland) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) | Williams, D. J. (Neath) | Mr. McKinlay and Lieut.- Commander Gurney Bratthwaite. |
| Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.) | Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Baldwin, A. E. | Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) | Studholme, H. G |
| Clarke, Col. R. S. | McCallum, Maj. D | Thomson, Sir D, (Aberdeen, s.) |
| Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness) | Medlicott, F. | Touche, G. C. |
| Drewe, C | Mellor, Sir J. | Vane, W. M. T. |
| Duthie, W. S. | Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) | White, Sir D. (Fareham) |
| Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. | Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall) | Williams, C. (Torquay) |
| Gomme-Duncan, Col A. G. | Shepherd, W. S. (Bueklow) | |
| Henderson, John (Cathoart) | Snadden, W. M. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES |
| Hutchison, Col, J. R. (Glasgow, C.) | Stoddart-Scott, Col. M. | Sir Wavell Wakefield and Mr. Hollis. |
| Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. | Strauss, H. G (English Universities) |
Resolution agreed to.
§
Resolved:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient,—