HC Deb 05 July 1956 vol 555 cc1527-9
38. Mr. Lewis

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated annual saving to the Treasury would be if, similarly to Members of Parliament, all civil servants and State employees had their wages or salaries frozen at their present level and the cost of their postage, telegrams, telephones, stationery, travel, living away from home expenses, secretarial expenses and all other expenses necessarily incurred by them in carrying out their duties to the State were met from their State or Civil Service pay.

Mr. H. Brooke

The hon. Member's Question reaches out into realms of hypothesis where I find it impossible to frame any reliable estimate.

Mr. Lewis

Is the Minister aware that again I rather thought that would be the sort of reply I would get. Can he explain why there is this differentiation between the Civil Service and Members of Parliament and why, out of all the millions of people in the country, the only ones whom the Government insist should be treated in this way are Members of Parliament?

Mr. Brooke

The hon. Gentleman has a later Question, Question No. 52, which bears on this matter.

Mr. Lewis

On a point of order. The Minister says there is another Question, which may or may not be reached. Is he entitled to say that he will answer a Question which may or may not be reached in answer to a question I have just put to him? Surely he should answer this question.

Mr. Speaker

There is nothing out of order in that.

52. Mr. Lewis

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that many Members of Parliament were formerly employed in the service of the Crown and may not return to this service while still maintaining their Parliamentary position and salary; and since an increase in Members' salaries has been refused if he will introduce legislation to enable Members to return to their previous employment under the Crown while still maintaining their Parliamentary position and salary.

Mr. H. Brooke

No, Sir. I can indeed perceive difficulties if an individual's duty required him as a civil servant to advise Ministers in private and as a Member of Parliament to criticise them in public.

Mr. Lewis

I also appreciate the difficulty. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has been said that Members of Parliament should go out and find other income? While that may be all right for hon. Members who can find employment as company directors, lawyers and the like, it is impossible for miners to go out and dig coal, even if it were physically possible for them to work in the two jobs. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give the right to go back to their former jobs, will he do something to give an adequate salary to enable hon. Members to carry on this job?

Mr. Brooke

I admire the ingenuity of the hon. Member in framing this Question, but I do not think it is the best way of solving the problem of Members' salaries.