§ Q9. Mr. Fisherasked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that it remains his policy to advise the retention of a Prime Minister's list in the honours system in this country.
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir.
§ Mr. FisherI am very glad to have the Prime Minister's reassurance. Would he agree, and reaffirm, that the honours system is a good way of recognising pub- 1958 lic service, at no cost to the taxpayer, and to the gratification of the recipients and their wives, which is also important? Because of this, does he not agree that the system should be continued?
§ The Prime MinisterI am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman is so pleased with the system. For my part, as I have told the House, I am always looking at ways in which it might be improved and made more fair.
§ Mr. HamlingIs my right hon. Friend aware that his affirmative answer does not meet with approval from below the Gangway?
§ The Prime MinisterNaturally I am very sorry to hear that, but I am sure that my hon. Friend would not suggest that we should continue an honours system without there being a Prime Minister's list in it, or I should just be a postbox for suggestions sent to me by other people.
§ Mr. KershawIs the Prime Minister satisfied that a system whereby the only profession in the country which can never be honoured is the profession of politics is altogether in the public interest?
§ The Prime MinisterWe have been over this before in question and answer. I think that very many of those who engage in the public service, be they political or not, now have a fairer chance of getting an honour than they had under the system by which very largely honours were given to members of one political party. I have expressed my views about what I thought was the unfortunate tendency of a previous Government to give knighthoods and similar honours to no fewer than 134 back-bench Members of their own party.