HC Deb 27 January 1970 vol 794 cc1203-5
Q5. Mr. Arthur Lewis

asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange to have the salaries of all of his staff raised by 10 per cent. and to ensure that all staff have increases sufficient to bring their salaries at least 35 per cent. above those paid in November, 1967.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

I have been asked to reply.

No, Sir. The salaries of civil servants are reviewed periodically on the principle of fair comparison in order to bring them into line with outside rates of pay for similar work.

Mr. Lewis

In paying tribute to the overworked and underpaid staff of the Prime Minister's office, may I ask whether it is not the case that they work very hard—indeed, just as hard as the Chairman of the Horse Race Betting Levy Board? As the Government seem loath to give increases to nurses, teachers and their own civil servants, why give increases to people like the Chairman of the Board and not to ordinary people?

Mr. Jenkins

The staff at No. 10 Downing Street seem to have worked sufficiently hard to have anticipated the nature of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I think that the difference between the Chairman of the Horse Race Betting Levy Board and the staff at No. 10 Downing Street is that he, during the period of the review, has gone from a four-day week to a five-day week, whereas the staff at No. 10 work at least five days a week.

Dame Irene Ward

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is time to hold an examination into the national Whitley Council arrangements? Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Education has said that he wants more pay for teachers and that the Secretary of State for Social Services, naturally, wants increased salaries for nurses, and I hope for physiotherapists, while at the same time instructions to the national representatives on the Whitley Council are militating against the management side of the Council being able to give increased salaries? Would he agree that the whole thing is a perfect farce?

Mr. Jenkins

I do not think that the hon. Lady is right in her assumption.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

In the context of this matter, would the right hon. Gentleman have in mind the additional burden of work falling on the Prime Minister's staff at present in seeking to reconcile the glaring differences between the answers given by the Prime Minister and those by Foreign Office Ministers on the question of the disclosure to Parliament of statements made by Ministers at the Western European Union and other overseas gatherings?

Mr. Jenkins

I am not aware of any such difference. I understand the position to be that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House last week that any public statements made abroad would gladly be communicated to this House but that where the statements were made under a normal basis of confidentiality it was of course desirable that this country, as others, should respect that confidentiality.

Mr. Marten

I am not sure whether this supplementary question is in Order—

Mr. Speaker

Order. If the original supplementary question was out of order, then the supplementary arising out of it will be doubly out of order.

Mr. Marten

Could the Chancellor recommend to his right hon. Friend that when he is answering Questions he should not refer to the transcripts of television broadcasts placed in the Library, which are nothing to do with what he should be saying in Parliament?

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is a question of salaries. Mr. Osborn—

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing

Would it be in order to congratulate the Chancellor on having answered the Prime Minister's Questions so succinctly and got through them for the first time on record?

Mr. Speaker

Order. This has happened for a variety of reasons. It is in order, if unusual, for one hon. Member to congratulate another.