Schedule 1.—(MINISTERIAL SALARIES.)

HC Deb 10 February 1965 vol 706 cc427-42

Amendment made: In page 15, leave out line 34.—[Mr. Diamond.]

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

I beg to move, in page 16, column 2, to leave out lines 3 to 18 and to insert:

4,250
4,250
4,250
4,250
4,250
4,250
4,250
4,250
4,250
4,250
4,250
4,250
4,250
4,250
4,250.

The Amendment deals with the salaries of junior Ministers. I have already praised the work of the Lawrence Committee. I think that the whole House feels that it did a very valuable job and examined the whole of our problems with great care. I also made it clear that I thought it was the Government's responsibility to accept or to reject the Committee's recommendations. The Government accepted the Committee's recommendations on Members' pay. I think that the figure was a little higher than I would have put forward, but I did not feel that the difference was sufficient to justify the controversy about that.

The Government have not accepted the Lawrence Committee's recommendations on Ministers' salaries, and have halved the suggested increases. I do not think that senior Ministers, or those of intermediate status, deserve too much sympathy. I have never been a junior Minister, but I say that they do deserve some sympathy. The Lawrence Committee recommended that their salaries should be £5,000 a year, compared with £2,500. Because of the maze of figures, it is rather difficult to be quite certain that one is right about them, but I think that in days gone by Parliamentary Secretaries and Under-Secretaries were paid £2,500, and the Lawrence proposal was that they should be paid £5,000.

The Government have halved the increase, and have suggested £3,750. The Amendment does not go so far as to restore the Lawrence figure, but it proposes to give them £500 a year more than the Government have proposed. It might be asked why we should plead this cause so strongly. This is not the first time that I have done so. I mentioned it during the Second Reading of the Bill when I said that the Government were wrong to scale down the Lawrence Committee's recommendations with regard to junior Ministers.

I put forward this alteration because the future of all Administrations depends very much on getting the right type of people to accept Ministerial careers. It is most necessary that the money going with the job should be an attraction, rather than a deterrent. In our experience in this House we all know of many people who would have made good Ministers, but who could not afford to take on Ministerial rank because of their commitments of one sort or another.

That is wrong, because appointment has certain hazards. The Minister concerned may prove not to be the success which was expected, and he may have a short Ministerial career. Equally, because of the fortunes of political warfare, the Government which he adorns may not survive for very long. It is quite a big decision to make, because he may have to sever his business connections, stop practising a profession, or abandon his business contacts, in the hope that some day he may be able to resume them. There is no certainty about his appointment, and to a cormparatively young man with family commitments, or perhaps relatives dependent on him, it can be an important decision for him to make. In those circumstances, we should make certain that no one is deterred from accepting these responsibilities by the size of the financial remuneration.

This is a case in which we should accept the figure which the Lawrence Committee put forward after careful consideration. It is not for me to say how the Committee arrived at these figures, but I think I can say without breach of confidence that the hope which I expressed was that the Committee would look at his from the point of view of the junior Minister before paying too much attention to senior Ministers. I thought that it would be better to get the junior Ministers' position right before considering that of Members of the Cabinet. I hope that the Committee approached it in that way, and in a sense worked up from the figure of £5,000 for junior Ministers to the figure which was put forward for senior Ministers. I do not know whether the Committee did that, but I hope that it did.

I ask the Government to think again about this matter. I have always thought that some increase was needed in Members' pay. I have always thought it intolerable that people should be Members of this House and be financially embarrassed through no fault of their own. I felt strongly about this, and I hope that my strong feelings did a little to lead to what eventually happened, because I know that I was representing the views of many Members who spoke to me when I was Leader of the House.

I feel equally strongly about the junior Ministers. It is wrong to halve the Lawrence Committee's recommendation. I hope that the Government will think again, because I believe that this will affect the quality and character of those who become Ministers.

Mr. Neil Marten (Banbury)

I support the Amendment, partly because I was one of the Parliamentary Secretaries to whom my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) referred, and also because Parliamentary Secretaries in the Government now cannot speak on this subject; and I there fore feel that I ought to act as their shop steward in this case. I doubt whether I have a vested interest in this, because on the imminent return of a Conservative Government I doubt whether I would be asked to be Parliamentary Secretary again. Anyhow, that is a matter of opinion.

Before becoming a Member of Parliament I had a job at which I earned as much as I could. I set, according to my own lights, a standard of living for my family, and I think I am right in saying that during that short period I tried to live within my income. I was very pleased at being elected, and I sat on the back benches with a great sense of humility, initially anyhow. When I saw my right hon. Friends answering Questions and making speeches from the Dispatch Box, I said to myself, "I shall never get there", so I settled down to a life and job outside, and to doing my duty in Parliament.

Suddenly, much to my surprise, I received a message to go and see the Prime Minister. I wondered at the time what it was all about. I wondered what I had done wrong, but I went along to see Mr. Macmillan. He told me that he would like me to join his son-in-law at the Ministry of Aviation. I was extremely surprised at this and said to him, "Well, Prime Minister, I must, in all honesty, make it quite clear that I know nothing at all about aviation". He did not exactly say, "Just the chap for the job", but he implied that when one joined a Ministry it was better to go there with an open mind than with pre-judged views on it.

That was settled, and I did not at the time think of the financial consequences of my acceptance of the appointment, because I felt that if it was the Prime Minister's view that I could be of service to the Government, I would do the job. I was one of those who at that time thought that my job would not last for very long either because I would be found out as not being efficient and dropped, or there would be a General Election pretty soon. But neither of those things happened.

I obtained the Prime Minister's permission to ring my wife because the appointment was not going to be announced for two days. She thought I was joking when I told her what had happened, but she accepted it in the end. Half an hour later she rang back and, being a wife, and having a family, she asked, "How does this affect us financially?" I told her that I thought that it could not last for too long, and I said that meanwhile we would have to accept a drop in our income. The next day I went to see my bank manager, who was very kind. He said, "Yes, carry on, and in the fullness of time we shall adjust the matter". On 17th October, 1964, I received a letter about an overdraft. That is the background to one Parliamentary Secretary's accepting a job in the Government. I accepted it with great pride, and tried to do the job to the best of my ability.

I welcome the increases provided in this Bill for a Parliamentary Secretary, but I take the view that he should receive at least half of what his Minister gets, because a Parliamentary Secretary has a considerable responsibility. His Minister is often away. In my case my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Amery), who did his job extremely well, went straight off in every Recess on a tour, to America to study American aviation, or to Australia, to see Blue Streak in operation and so on. During practically every Recess I was left in charge of the Ministry of Aviation, and I accepted the responsibility and was thoroughly happy to do so.

As for the work actually done by a Parliamentary Secretary, I found myself working extremely hard in terms of hours. With great respect to my colleagues and senior Ministers, I must point out that a Parliamentary Secretary tends to have to deal with quite a lot of chores, which are very time-consuming. It is necessary for him to do a lot of background reading, and also to take responsibility for answering his share of Questions at the Box. In terms of hours alone a Parliamentary Secretary works almost as hard as his Minister, although he does not have the great ultimate responsibility of his Minister. I hope that the Government will agree to the Amendment, because the Bill is the last occasion for some years when we shall have the opportunity to adjust Ministers' salaries.

I repeat what I said when I started: speaking as one who may be entitled to act as a shop steward for junior Ministers, I hope that the Government will agree to the Amendment.

Mr. Chapman

I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). If the Bill had dealt mainly with the salaries of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries I would have had even more sympathy with it. But it deals not only with Parliamentary Secretaries and Ministers but also with the intermediate stage of Ministers of State. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment were accepted we would be paying Parliamentary Secretaries at £4,250 and Ministers of State not exactly as is laid down in the Schedule but, as is now the custom, £4,500.

In my view, we could not accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment unless he was prepared to link it with an Amendment in connection with Ministers of State. A differential of £250 between the two jobs seems quite ridiculous and out of keeping with what we are intending. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not refer to that point. If he wishes to stick to his Amendment he should have referred in his remarks to the level of salary at which he thought Ministers of State should start to be paid.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

I thought that one of the benefits of the flexibility which the Government had sought was that they could put up the salary of any Minister of State to £8,500. They already have authority to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Chapman

I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am only saying that in his remarks he should have made it clear that besides his proposal that we should pay Parliamentary Secretaries £4,250 he was also putting forward. as a linked part of his proposal, the suggestion that the present level of £4,500 in respect of Ministers of State should be increased, within the discretion provided in the Schedule. If not, there would not be a real differential between Parliamentary Secretaries and Ministers of State.

We are very sensibly moving into a situation where we have three distinct grades of Ministers—Departmental Ministers, Ministers of State and Parliamentary Secretaries. I hope that we shall make increasing use of Ministers of State in the future, and maintain a proper differential between their salaries and those of Parliamentary Secretaries. If all that we can afford—or if all that the Government think is wise—is to pay Ministers of State about £4,500, or even £5,000, at the moment, we should not so alter the differential as to involve paying Parliamentary Secretaries more than £3,750. The fault of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that he is thinking of Parliamentary Secretaries in isolation, whereas he should think of them in conjunction with Ministers of State.

Sir D. Renton

Does the hon. Member realise that his point would have been met if the Government had accepted my right hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, in page 15, line 31, at end insert: Miinster of State not in the Cabinet £5,625 Then the differentials would be quite right as between full Ministers, Ministers of State not in the Cabinet, and junior Ministers.

Mr. Chapman

I am sorry that that Amendment was not called. I would willingly have spoken to it. But I think that the arrangement is about right, with Ministers receiving £8,500, Ministers of State £4,500—although I would have liked to see them given a salary nearer £5,000-and then, at another significant differential below this, Parliamentary Secretaries receiving £3,750. In my view the arrangement is about right as the Government have it, and I do not think that we should accept the Amendment.

Sir R. Cary

As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. N. Marten) has set the pattern for recounting reminiscences, I should like to tell the House that I remember a telephone message being made to my constituency in 1944 indicating to me that there was a possible vacancy for me in the Government, and asking whether it would be the sort of thing that might interest me. I volunteered the information that I could possibly catch the midnight train to London, and I duly presented myself at Downing Street. Unfortunately, the appointment that I was offered had the unfortunate word "unpaid" attached to it. I began my Ministerial duties with a very distinguished companion, but we suffered from being included in the bracket "unpaid". Subsequently, when I attended the customary eve of Session dinner at 10 Downing Street, from the welcome that I was given one would have thought that I had been made Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The Chief Secretary knows my views about Ministers of State. I take the point put forward by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), but as an act of fairness I would say that the figure indicated in the Amendment is justifiable, and I hope that the Chief Secretary will treat it sympathetically. I say that because it does not cause any distortion in what is placed before the House. The modest enhancement that it represents should provide that degree of flexibility that is sought. If the hon. Gentleman accepts it he will meet the generally fair-minded wishes of the House.

Sir D. Renton

The Chief Secretary showed in Committee that his heart was in the right place in this matter. This is a very important question. We must ensure that the arrangements that we make now will stand the test of time. We are making these alterations for the first time since 1830, and it is sad to reflect that the £3,750 which is proposed in the Bill for junior Ministers provides a smaller purchasing power than the £1,500 which was put forward for them in 1831, and which remained their salary until, partly due to the influence of Mr. Harold Macmillan, it was raised to £2,500 in 1957.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) made some very good points. I wonder if the House bore in mind, as he was speaking so modestly, the fact that when he took over the Department in the absence of his Minister he had half his Minister's salary, which Parliamentary Secretaries will not get unless we amend the Bill. Nevertheless, at £2,500 a year he was getting less than a good many of the civil servants in that Department. Yet he was in charge in the Minister's absence. This is a point which the Lawrence Committee did not even consider in relation to junior Ministers. It was considered in relation to Ministers. The Committee said that a Minister must have a bigger salary than the Permanent Secretary of the Department, but this point about Parliamentary Secretaries was completely overlooked by the Committee. The Committee did very well in other respects—I am not criticising it—but this point was completely overlooked.

Hon. Gentlemen on the other side with connections with trades unions have spent some of the best years of their lives fighting for differentials. Surely, when they come to this important question of the relationship between Ministers and junior Ministers, they should not ignore the differentials. Surely it is right that a junior Minister, with all the work which he has to do and with all the responsibility which he has to undertake, should have at least half of what the Minister has. The House and the country have suffered in the past, in the fairly recent past especially, because very able people—certainly on this side of the House and, I dare say, there may even have been cases on the other side—have had to turn down the chance of getting their first foothold on the ladder towards the Cabinet, simply because, owing to their family responsibilities and the financial sacrifices which they would have had to make, they could not afford to do it. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury was very lucky to have been given two days to think the matter over. Some of us had to make up our minds—

Mr. Marten

For the record, I should say that it was two days before my appointment was announced. I accepted on the spot.

Sir D. Renton

I thought that my hon. Friend had two days to think about it. But not all people asked to accept junior Ministerial office at fairly low salaries were given that opportunity.

Also, I think, it should be borne in mind that, especially when the Minister himself is in the Cabinet, the junior Minister has to take charge of Bills in Standing Committee in this House. That involves a good deal of responsibility, as well as a good deal of work. The same thing arises—I believe that it occurs in this Parliament in several cases—when the Minister himself is in the Lords and the junior Minister has to fight his master's battles in this House. It is absurd and, I think, rather scandalous that he should not have half the salary which his Minister has.

I say to the Chief Secretary, who naturally has the cost in mind—and rightly so—that it would be a false economy if we did not get this matter right. Indeed, the Treasury does not want to be faced with the necessity of having another Bill to retrieve the situ- tion, in what could be embarrassing circumstances, in a few years' time. We want to get it right now. It would be a false economy not to accept my right hon. and learned Friend's Amendment.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

If I may intervene in this debate which seems to be between Ministers and ex-Ministers, I should like to say that I have never had a call on the telephone, but I feel in a happier frame of mind this evening than I have for a very long time because my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has given me, for the first time, an indication why this was—obviously, because it was not thought that the salary was high enough. At any rate, when I look at this Bill, I am not quite so pessimistic as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury. I am sure that he has no cause to be pessimistic. I am sure that he has hopes for the future and perhaps I have hopes for the future, too. Therefore, this is the last chance which I shall have to make any impact on, and any contribution to, the salary which I may have if I were ever to be appointed a Minister.

I think that my right hon. and learned Friend's Amendment should be accepted by the Government, because, as has been said, many junior Ministers have to give up outside employment where they could earn much more than they can as junior Ministers, even with this increase in salary. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) made some reference to Ministers of State, the intermediate Ministers between Parliamentary Secretaries and full Ministers. I think that the point has been made—and I want to emphasise it—that in our view there are too many Ministers of State in the present Government, and if there were to be fewer in any future Government, Parliamentary Secretaries would be in an even worse position.

Secondly, I do not think that Parliamentary Secretaries at £3,750 a year, to say nothing of the Captain of the Queen's Bodyguard, the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household, and the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household, whatever they may do or whatever they may be—I think that they are generally the Whips—have salaries, as now fixed, which are good enough or high enough in relation to Members of Parliament, even allowing for the fact that Ministers get part of their pay as a Member of Parliament. In that regard, the differential from the lower level to the second level is not sufficient. Junior Ministers have a tremendous amount of work to do, both in this House and in their Departments, as well as carrying on their normal work as Members of Parliament.

We want the best people, whichever Government happens to be in office. I think that the present Government have made a mistake of judgment in fixing these salaries at —3,750 and —3,300. I hope that they will accept the reasonable Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Diamond

I think that I had better bring this debate swiftly to an end, because, if we have a Division, I can see all the Parliamentary Secretaries and all the Whips voting against the Government if we go on much longer. That is a situation which one cannot face with equanimity.

I want to be as helpful and as sympathetic as I can on this occasion and I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) for what he said. He said that my heart is in the right place. I hope that he will not misunderstand me if I say that I hope my heart is in the right place, that is to say not in my head. I hope that one can look at this matter objectively and sensibly. I agree that this is not a matter of saving money on the part of a Treasury Minister. One has to look at this objectively and carefully. One should not upset lightly the pattern of salaries which has been laid down in a report which we all regard as authoritative, independent and the only safe thing to rely on. If one does not rely on some outside report, one is subject to so many pressures at so many times that there is no way of determining the issues without great difficulty.

6.30 p.m.

I was most taken by the unusually modest and charming remarks of the very charming and modest Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). I thought that he was over modest. The hon. Gentleman explained to us that when offered the job by the Prime Minister of the day he said, "But, Prime Minister, why should I have this job? I know nothing about it.". Surely the hon. Gentleman is overmodest. He has as great a justification for accepting the job as any other of his right hon. and hon. Friends and it was wrong for him to put the case in that way. He made the point, which we well understand, that the present absolute figure proposed for Parliamentary Secretaries is low. Admittedly it is low. The present figure proposed for Whips is low, and one understands this, but what is one to do if one departs from the proposals laid down for the pattern of salaries by the Lawrence Report?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

rose—

Mr. Diamond

I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be good enough to let me explain the case. I am only starting by saying that I do understand the figure is low. If anyone wishes to say that in comparison with salaries available outside, the proposed salaries for a Member of Parliament and a Minister—particularly a Minister—are low, I should agree immediately. Everyone who has had experience of the commercial world and the professional world—particularly the commercial world—knows that salaries of this kind for the ability involved are very low.

Two or three hon. Members have mentioned that what one should do is increase the salary of the lower-paid and not of the higher-paid Ministers. The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) said this was the evidence that he put before the Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman—

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

I never suggested that there should be no increase for the higher paid Ministers.

Mr. Diamond

I am sorry, a proportionately greater increase for the lower paid Ministers, I did not mean to misrepresent the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

The same point was made by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire. What did the Committee recommend? The Committee looked at this very carefully and recommended a broad increase in a variety of salaries. For £2,000 it recommended £4,000—double. For —2,500 it recommended £5,000—double. For £3,750 it recommended £7,500—double. In respect of all these salaries which, broadly, are for Parliamentary Secretaries, Whips and so on—junior Ministers, let us put it in that general category—it recommended doubling the salary. What did the Committee do in respect of Ministerial salaries? The point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was that there should be a disproportionately high increase in the lower salaries. What did the Committee do? It recommended an increase in the salaries of Departmental Ministers and Cabinet Ministers; not from £5,000 to £10,000 which would be double, or from £5,000 to £7,500, less than double, and so accede to the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It recommended increases from £5,000 to £12,000. The Committee said, "We have listened to all the evidence and considered all the relevant circumstances and the responsibility of Ministers and the need to get people to serve in these extremely responsible jobs from outside. We say that the Ministers, the higher-paid Ministers, require more than double their present salary". The Committee said the differential should be increased at the top. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been putting to me that the differential should be increased at the bottom.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

Does the hon. Gentleman really think that had the Lawrence Committee known that its recommendations for increases were to be halved, it would have retained these figures?

Mr. Diamond

I realise that we have not adopted the precise figures of the Lawrence Committee. We have taken one half of the increase. What I am making clear, first, in reply to one hon. Gentleman, I think the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary), who referred to distortion—and the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire talked about differentials—is that the only way to keep to the differentials proposed by the Lawrence Committee, and avoid distortion, was to keep to proportionate figures. For a Cabinet Minister getting £5,000 we get an increase even higher than for a Parliamentary Secretary getting £2,500. We have kept this pro- portion in the Bill. My first point is that if we acceded to the suggestion which has been made to us—however one understands, as one does, that in absolute terms these figures are low and not high—we should be destroying the pattern put to us by the Lawrence Committee and we cannot do that, however sympathetically and carefully we look at it.

It will be said to me, "You have not accepted the Lawrence Committee's proposals". No, we have not. We have gone as far as we could in accepting them. The needs of Ministers and the needs of the State have to be taken into account and we have said that it is not appropriate, and not needed, that there should be the full increase proposed by the Lawrence Committee. We therefore took one half of the proposed increase. In this we have kept the proportion right, and to the pattern recommended. I do not think, therefore, that one can reasonably be asked at this stage to take any particular band or grade out of that proportion and say, "We will now deliberately distort the recommendation and put in a different figure".

Sir D. Renton

The Chief Secretary is saying that the proportions fixed by the Lawrence Committee are sacrosanct. Surely he must know that in fixing those proportions the Committee had in mind the gross amount for each salary it recommended. If it had recommended other amounts, it might well have decided on different proportions. The Government have reduced the total amounts, so surely the argument based on proportion is no longer a valid one.

Mr. Diamond

If the Opposition feel that this salary of £3,750 should be £4,250, they should put down the proportionate increases in all the other salaries that would arise. That is their responsibility, if they want to depart from the pattern of the arbitration award. I admit that we have not accepted the arbitration award in full. We have accepted the differential laid down. Any of my hon. and right hon. Friends who has experience of wage or trade union negotiations knows that to keep the differentials right is a very important part of the total. Moreover, why refer only to Parliamentary Secretaries? There is a real case in respect of the Whips who are paid less.

The Whips are full-time paid officials who enable us to carry out our duties with varying success, as we saw last night and have seen today—with a little more success today than last night, but adequately successful.

Sir R. Cary

Add a manuscript Amendment for the Whips.

Mr. Diamond

We cannot do it in that way.

I have considered this sympathetically. It is true that the salaries are low in absolute terms and that the salary differences between back bench Members and the Whips and Parliamentary Secretaries is low because we have accepted the recommendations 100 per cent. for Members of Parliament and only a 50 per cent. increase for Ministers. It is inevitable that there is that difference. We feel that this salary is not high, but that it is not impossibly low. The Parliamentary allowance has been increased. It is £1,250, which should, on average, fully re-imburse a junior Minister for his constituency duties in respect of which he is paid £1,250. In short, he receives a total of £5,000 out of which he has to make a variety of disbursements as a Member of Parliament. No one says that this is a lavish salary. We are not trying to create lavish salaries, quite the reverse, I am bound to say that it is a satisfactory minimum level.

There has been a substantial increase and, compared with pre-war, it is indeed substantial. It was £1,250 to £1,500 prewar and I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will feel that I have been as sympathetic as I could be.

By and large, one must proceed on some criterion and it would have been an impossibly difficult position had we been fixing our own salaries right, left and centre. There would have been pressure for all sorts of other increases, as indeed there have been. I have had to turn down much of this pressure. The Amendment is reasonable, but I think that the arguments I have put forward are also powerful.

Mr. Marten

The hon. Gentleman said that a Minister had no disbursements to make out of his Ministerial salary. He does, but he cannot charge them. In addition, he loses any taxation benefit on the amount he must pay for, say, an apartment which he might have in London, and this is a serious blow to some Ministers. Ministers in this position do have some suffering.

Mr. Diamond

The hon. Member is well informed, probably from experience. I suppose that one might call it suffering. He is absolutely right and I deliberately referred to the amount of £1,250, which is a figure reimbursing his Parliamentary back-bench expenditure. It was not available as a reimbursement for the expenditure of a Minister. The world should indeed know that amounts of money do come out of the pockets—their own pockets—of Ministers and that it is part of taxed income. If a Minister lives in the Provinces and finds it necessary to have a flat in London he must pay for it out of his own pocket.

Sir M. Redmayne

Is not the Chief Secretary aware that a Minister is treated differently from private Members in this respect, for he is technically assumed to be domiciled in London? There has always been thought to be a great injustice between the two and it might be put right. It is a matter of the Income Tax ruling.

Amendment negatived.