§ Q4. Sir C. Osborneasked the Prime Minister if he will reduce all Cabinet salaries by 15 per cent. and so help resist the inflationary tendencies in our economy, as has been done in the Irish Republic.
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. There has been no increase in the level of Ministerial salaries since that implemented on 1st April, 1965, following the recommendations made by the Committee set up with all-party agreement. In the case of Ministers, the Government reduced by one-half the increase recommended by the Committee.
§ Sir C. OsborneSince the I.M.F. is insisting on a drastic economy campaign in this country—[Interruption.]—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I should like to hear the supplementary question.
§ Sir C. Osbornerose—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Sir C. Osbornerose—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Sir C. Osbornerose—
§ Sir C. OsborneAt the next General Election the hon. Gentleman will not be here—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member must put his question.
§ Sir C. OsborneMr. Speaker, I am entitled to your protection so that I can hear the question I wish to put—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The House is doing itself no good at the moment. It 1619 must be prepared to hear questions, even if it disapproves of them.
§ Sir C. OsborneSince the I.M.F. is insisting on an economy campaign in this country as the price of granting us further loans for which we are asking, ought not an example to be set at the top?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman must take his own responsibility for stating, asserting or discussing what may be going on in discussions with the I.M.F. He has in this case misinterpreted the main line of I.M.F. thinking over a period of time. What it insisted on last time the hon. Gentleman will know because of the publication of the Letter of Intent by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But the hon. Gentleman would be deluded totally if he thought that this particular proposal, which was debated in this House at the time of the public expenditure statement, will be considered by the I.M.F. or anybody else as relevant to the much bigger job that this country has to do and has been doing over these past years.
§ Mr. John LeeWill my right hon. Friend now take steps to reduce the salaries of the chairmen of private industries so that we are not embarrassed by having to raise the salaries of chairmen of public corporations, and thereby do something to advance the equality for which this party is supposed to stand?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not think this arises out of the Question. But my hon. Friend will have studied the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes and has obviously formed his own conclusions about it.
§ Sir D. Walker-SmithThe Prime Minister has referred to the Letter of Intent. Will he acquaint the House of any further communications or any further demands made by the I.M.F. on the British economy?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. and learned Gentleman will no doubt wish to nut that question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Letter of Intent which was sent in November, 1967, was in respect of a very major drawing, and my right hon. Friend decided to break with precedent 1620 in making all the terms of it available to the House. Any question of further discussions, whether involving a statement in writing or in any other form, is a matter for my right hon. Friend to whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman should therefore put a Question.
§ Mr. MolloyMay I ask my right hon. Friend whether he saw the article in the Evening Standard last week which said that there was a rise in tax evasion, particularly by the very rich? Ought not that to be examined so that some prosecutions can ensue to nudge their patriotism?
§ The Prime MinisterIn so far as that statement received such an authoritative publication, I should think again that that is a matter more appropriate for consideration at the Committee stage of the Finance Bill than in relation to this Question, which does not deal with that point at all.