§ 3 Sir G. Nabarroasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in view of the recommended increases of certain civil servants' salaries to £14,000 per annum, which will alter the relationship with Ministerial salaries, he will refer the salaries of Ministers and Members to the National Board for Prices and Incomes with instructions to report by 1st October, 1969;
(2) whether, in view of the recommended increase of certain civil servants' salaries to £14,000 per annum, he will refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes his own taxable and non-taxable salary and emoluments, with an instruction to the Board to report by 1st October, 1969.
§ The Prime MinisterThere are no plans to increase Ministerial salaries. On the remuneration of Members, I have nothing to add to what I said in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North West (Mr. Ellis) on 3rd April.—[Vol. 781, c. 649–50.]
§ Sir G. NabarroWould the right hon. Gentleman reconsider that reply, having regard to the fact that, recently, a statement has been made to the effect that the salaries of the senior echelon of civil servants were to be raised progressively from £9,000 per annum to £14,000 after those of the senior echelon of the heads of nationalised industries have been raised from £12,500 to £20,000 and, in one case, to £25,000? Does he think that Members of the House of Commons should be the only public servants to be disregarded in 405 the context of highly increased costs of operation?
§ The Prime MinisterI know the feeling in all parts of the House on this question and particularly, of course, about the problem which hon. Members have in meeting the costs of doing the job, quite apart from the question of salaries. But the supplementary answer to which I referred in my original reply was, of course, in reference to the remit which the Services Committee now has on hand to consider these very questions. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House told the House in reply to Questions earlier—I think that I have it right—that he was hoping to be able to present the report of the Services Committee to the House before the Recess. I suggest we wait for that report before making further progress.
§ Mr. C. PannellWould my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the effects of this reference to the Plowden Committee and the Committee's findings go far beyond the Government and that they impinge even upon the authority of Mr. Speaker and this House, in so far as we had the ridiculous position in 1965 that Mr. Speaker received remuneration below that of the Second Clerk Assistant and that we are likely to reach that ridiculous situation again? Is he aware that the pay of the Officers of the House is reflected in these rises, because they follow Civil Service rates? Would he do something to stop this particular nonsense?
§ The Prime MinisterI am aware of these difficulties; indeed, they are difficulties which were commented upon in a different context by the Lawrence Committee in 1964, when it referred to the disparity between Ministers' salaries and the salaries of their Permanent Secretarys. At that time, there was the problem of Mr. Speaker and his salary in relation to those of the paid Officers of the House. All these questions are very much in the minds of all of us, but it would be right for the House to await the report of the Services Committee before the Recess.
§ Sir C. OsborneDoes the right hon. Gentleman agree that whatever the merits may be behind a demand for increased salaries, from whichever quarter it may come, he must bear in mind the impor- 406 tance of checking inflation since it affects the poorest of the poor? Before giving way to demands, will he bear this in mind?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is a central consideration, and has been throughout in the proposals which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put and is putting again to the House this week in the matter of Budget finance and monetary policy.
The hon. Gentleman is right, of course, to refer to inflation in this context. However, there are problems about hon. Members being able to do their job, and these are being examined. There is the question—the hon. Gentleman referred to those living in poverty—of the poor, and there has recently been announced a further increase in retirement pensions and other social security benefits. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not enough."] Some of my hon. Friends feel that these increases have not been big enough. We would all like them to be greater, but there is the problem of paying for them, a subject which, again, the House has discussed.
The answer to the other point he raised is that I think that we should leave the matter to the Services Committee.
§ Mr. ShinwellWould my right hon. Friend agree that the question of increased Ministerial and hon. Members' salaries can be dealt with at a date some time in the future? Is not the central issue this: since time and again under the prices and incomes policy the question of workers' wages has been under review in this House, why was it necessary to come to this decision without consulting hon. Members? Why should the Government be so trigger-happy in making vast sums of remuneration available to civil servants in view of the strong feeling in the Labour Party on this matter?
§ The Prime MinisterI take it that when my right hon. Friend referred to "this decision" he was referring to the Report of the Plowden Committee and the announcement of last Friday. He will be aware that it was indicated on Friday that it would be our intention in the future progressively to ensure that more and more of the special reporting bodies on the incomes of particular groups—professional groups and others—will be brought under the aegis of the Prices and Incomes Board.
§ Sir A. V. HarveyIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that a problem which is even more urgent than that of increasing hon. Members' salaries is the one affecting hon. Members' widows? Is he aware that in the last year there have been at least two cases of ladies in this category being expected to live on a pittance compared with the provision made by the French legislature and Parliaments in other parts of the world? Is not this an absolute disgrace?
§ The Prime MinisterI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, because hon. Members in all parts of the House have recent reason to know of this problem in individual cases concerning well-respected hon. Members of Parliament. I suggest that this matter is best left to the authorities concerned with it, although there is, I am sure, general support in the House for what the hon. Gentleman said.
§ Mr. HefferIs my right hon. Friend aware that it is not a question of increasing hon. Members' salaries but a question of providing assistance to enable hon. Members to do their job; for example, assistance with secretarial work, postage, out-of-town expenses, and so on? Is he aware that many hon. Members who, like myself, have been shop stewards are wondering what we have been doing in this place for the last few years? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] In other words, is he aware that in any circumstances I would have called a mass meeting long ago to get something done about the present state of affairs?
§ The Prime MinisterI am sure that any mass meeting that my hon. Friend might have called on this subject in this building would have been better packed than any other, since these matters are always fully discussed among hon. Members. I assure my hon. Friend that I am aware of the point he made; namely, that he is concerned not so much with the question of salaries but with the question of the ability of hon. Members to do their job and the need to meet the costs involved in doing that job.
This matter was referred to the Services Committee and that is why I once again urge the House to await the report of the Services Committee which, it has been indicated to us—I do not suppose that this can be regarded as a promise 408 —will be available before the Recess. Once the report is received the House can consider it.
§ Dame Irene WardWould the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that I do not regard hon. Members as public servants and that I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) on this issue? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He does not represent me. Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that I am more interested in those living on small fixed incomes? Will he also take note that I do not want the Services Committee interfering in this kind of matter; that I do not care tuppence for the Services Committee over this. I want something for those living on small fixed incomes rather than for the rest of the community.
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Lady is, of course, entitled to her view. Her remarks will have been noted by the House, although I am not, of course, concerned with any disagreement that there may be between her and her hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro).
§ Dame Irene WardBut I am.
§ The Prime MinisterThat is obvious, but such rifts in the lute are of more concern to the hon. Lady than they are to me. I am concerned, as is the hon. Gentleman who raised the matter initially and as are hon. Members in all parts of the House, about the specific question of the cost of the services which are necessary for an hon. Member to do his job properly.
The question of people living on fixed incomes, pensions and so on is, of course, important; and I am sure that the hon. Lady will be delighted to be sitting in a Parliament which has raised old-age pensions nearly as much in five years as her Conservative Administration did in 13 years.
§ Mr. WinnickWhile there is a strong case for hon. Members who represent provincial constituencies to have better lodging allowances, free telephone calls and so on, may I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that some of us consider that it would be wrong to raise hon. Members' salaries now or in the near future? Would not my right hon. Friend 409 agree that, as Labour Members, we should bear in mind that there are millions of low-wage earners whose financial needs are far greater than ours?
§ The Prime MinisterI am well aware of the views of my hon. Friend and those of many other hon. Members. Many hon. Members consider that the right way to attack this problem, whatever the anomalies may be, is by improving the means to do the job rather than increasing the basic rate of pay. In any consideration of this matter it is clear that the House—we have always wished to take this line in the past—must take into account public opinion outside. It might be the right and fair judgment of public opinion that it is more concerned that hon. Members should be more able to do their job, both in relation to their constituencies and in the House, than it is with hon. Members' salaries. That raises an issue which the Services Committee is considering.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We are well past Question Time.