§ Q2. Sir C. Osborneasked the Prime Minister, in view of the widespread dissatisfaction at his wage standstill policy amongst industrial workers, if he will take steps, by legislation and otherwise, to reduce Members of Parliament's salaries by 10 per cent. and Ministerial salaries by 20 per cent.; and if he will make a statement.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)No, Sir. The aim is temporarily to stabilise incomes, not to reduce them.
§ Sir C. OsborneIs the Prime Minister aware that this letter from No. 10 Downing street states
This suggestion does have a strong appeal"?If he says that on paper, why does he not act upon it? Why does he not enable Members of the House to share in the austerity that he is imposing upon others?
§ The Prime MinisterObviously, the suggestion has a strong appeal. It is appealing to the hon. Member and to very many people who write to me. There is no question about that. This matter was settled, however, as a result of a committee which was set up, with the agreement of all parties, before the 1964 election. So far as Members of Parliament are concerned, that report was acted upon. In the case of Ministers, there was a six months' standstill and then the report was accepted only as to one-half of the recommended increase.
§ Mr. BlackburnDoes not my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever merit there may be in this suggestion, the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) is the last person who should make it since he is one who is likely to be least affected by it?
§ The Prime MinisterI would not be prepared to make invidious comments on any hon. Member in connection with his approach to this question, but any hon. Member is, of course, free, if he is in reasonably comfortable circumstances or has earnings outside, to decide, as some hon. Members always have done in the past, not to receive his salary as a Member of Parliament.
§ Mr. MolloyWill my right hon. Friend note that the sort of Question which has been put to him and which initiated this discussion is designed mainly to get cheap, sleazy publicity and that he ought to treat it with utter contempt?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. I am sorry, I cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestion. It is not for me to inquire into the circumstances behind the Question. I know that the hon. Member for Louth feels strongly on this matter and 1141 has said so on a number of occasions outside. While very often many of us disagree with his proposals, I am not usually in much doubt of the sincerity with which he puts them.
§ Mr. LubbockWill the Prime Minister make inquiries as to the percentage by which the emoluments of the hon. Member for Louth have increased as chairman of two large companies—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I hope that we can conduct debates politically and not personally.
§ Mr. Lubbock rose—[Interruption.]
§ Sir G. NabarroOn a point of order. You have frequently ruled, Mr. Speaker, as have your predecessors, that it is out of order to make dishonourable imputations against an hon. Member. An hon. Member opposite has referred to sleazy propaganda by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth. As that is clearly a dishonourable imputation, would you not cause it to be withdrawn?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I hope that the hon. Member will ask, but not attempt to make Ruling for the Chair. If something had been said that was out of order, the Chair would have called attention to it.
§ Mr. LubbockMay I ask—
§ Sir G. Nabarro rose—
§ Sir C. OsborneOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We are wasting valuable Question Time. Sir Cyril Osborne, on a point of order.
§ Sir C. OsborneSince a slur has been cast on my reputation, may I seek your guidance as to how I can best defend myself from this baseless and foul slander?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman must seek his Parliamentary opportunities. I called attention to the moment when I thought that the bounds of order had been overstepped in the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). Mr. Lubbock—question.
§ Mr. LubbockI apologise, Mr. Speaker, if I stepped outside the bounds 1142 of order. My question to the Prime Minister is this. Does he not consider that greater savings would accrue to the Exchequer by imposing a means test on hon. Members whose outside interests are so extensive that they cannot possibly pay adequate attention to their Parliamentary duties?
§ The Prime MinisterThe idea of a means test has been considered repeatedly both by Select Committees and other Committees concerned with the remuneration of Members of Parliament, and it has been rejected after being considered carefully by the House itself. As to the suggestion that any hon. Member has too many outside interests to be able to do his work in this House adequately, that must be a question for the hon. Gentleman concerned to decide and cannot be a matter for me; nor is there any Ministerial responsibility for who is chairman of what public or private company.
§ Mr. HoggDoes not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that those of us present on both sides of the House who wish to keep this out of party politics would find it easier to do so if hon. Members who do not have that wish were a little less offensive to individual hon. Members of the House?
§ The Prime MinisterI welcome very much the tone in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken, in view of his well-known desire on all occasions never to be offensive and never to make party points.