§ 45. Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister if he will move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the business affiliations of all hon. Members, and the payment of retainers and other fees to them for services to business interests, particularly in the field of advertising and public relations, with a view to making all such information readily and regularly available to the 1679 public, and with a view to devising a scheme for providing from public funds working facilities to hon. Members sufficient to enable them properly to discharge their duties.
§ The Prime MinisterIt is our tradition that a Member of Parliament must be free to conduct his personal affairs himself, subject to the accepted rules and conventions.
§ Mr. Noel-BakerThe Prime Minister can hardly be unaware that there is a serious and growing anxiety inside and outside Parliament about the payment of money by business interests to Members of Parliament for services which they can render only because they are Members of this House. Is he aware that these anxieties are shared by a number of his hon. Friends? Is he further aware that under present conditions it is impossible for an hon. Member to discharge his duties effectively and efficiently without outside money, which he needs in order to provide himself with the working facilities for so doing? Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision and look at this whole matter again in an impartial and objective way?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not know what is meant by working facilities. I thought that you, Mr. Speaker, made a statement on 28th March, regarding the general facilities of the House and the problem of accommodation and so forth. I would rather leave that for the moment. With regard to the other question, I think it a matter, as I say, for the personal judgment of hon. Members. But no doubt, if there is this feeling, the fact that it has been ventilated will carry some weight with hon. Members in assessing their duties.
§ Mr. Emrys HughesIn view of the fact that Members of Parliament get £1,750 a year which is supposed to be for attending the House of Commons, does not the Prime Minister think that there should be a better attendance in the House of Commons, and that the absenteeism has become a public scandal and a disgrace?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not think so.
§ Mr. Emrys HughesLook at the Division figures.
§ The Prime MinisterThere is a system called "pairing" which I should be very sorry to see come to an end. As I say, these are matters of taste and tradition and I should be very sorry to see a House of Commons which included no hon. Members with outside interests in work, functions and even responsibilities.
§ Mr. C. PannellWill the Prime Minister consider this matter against the rather fastidious standards of British public life? Does he not think that the standards are well maintained in this place and that this place is not a squalid place full of squalid people not attending to their duties—though there may be a few squalid people in it? Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, though hon. Members are underpaid, this place is still not meanly esteemed, and if there is any inquiry at all, may not we have it to prove that the standards of British public life are still such that this is a place where one is still rather proud to be?
§ The Prime MinisterIt was for the reason that, broadly, I share the sentiments that the hon. Member has expressed, that I answered the Question in the way in which I did.