The salary payable to any person under Schedules 1 and 2 to this Act shall be reduced by the amount of any fee or payment he may obtain while in receipt of such salary from writing, or television or radio performances and by the amount of any money prize which he may derive directly or indirectly from the public position he holds.—[Mr. Arthur Lewis.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Arthur LewisI beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I am sure that I can get the support of the whole Committee for the Clause. It is a pity that nearly all the members of the Press have gone to bed because this is a lovely story which they should have reported.
I wish to deal with the last part of the Clause first. There are Ministers, from the Prime Minister downwards, who because of their office are able to obtain large sums of money—plums which drop into their lap—in tax-free prizes. We have a Prime Minister who—and I pay tribute to him—is a great yachtsman and has won a number of prizes. I do not want to deprive him of them, because he is worthy of them and entitled to receive them. But also by virtue of his office, for which he has received a handsome salary, plus handsome expenses, his house, fuel and so on, he has undertaken certain work in Europe. This may well be important work, and he may or may not have been very successful in his own eyes. I am not sure that in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of the people he has been so successful. He it was who gave a solemn promise that we would not go into Europe without the overwhelming consent of the people of this country, yet in the full knowledge that he has not got that support, and cannot get it, he arranges for us to go into Europe and to sign the Treaty of Accession on Saturday, without letting hon. Members have a copy of even the rules and regulations connected with it until yesterday. Then for all those efforts he is awarded a prize of about £37,500. I understand that a committee recommended him for the prize, strangely enough consisting of members who have been very anxious to cajole Britain into the Common Market. One member is none other than the best Chancellor of the Exchequer the Tory Party could ever 369 find, Lord Butler, who I think is the Lord Chancellor of one of the universities—
§ Mr. WhitelawHe is Master of Trinity College, Cambridge.
§ Mr. LewisAs always, I bow to the superior knowledge of the Leader of the House and thank him for his help, which he always so graciously gives and which I am always very happy to accept.
Lord Butler, who happens to have been associated with the Prime Minister when the right hon. Gentleman was the Opposition Chief Whip and then the Government Chief Whip, decides that the best man to receive the £37,500 is—guess who?—the right hon. Ted Heath, Prime Minister of Great Britain. I cannot think that that is right, that in addition to all the things the Prime Minister is getting, all the perks, all the plums, he should receive £37,500 tax free. I should like to know what that is worth in taxable income. I wish that one or two of my hon. Friends who are experts on income tax could work out the value to a single man of £20,000 a year, plus £4,000 a year tax-free expenses, two houses, fuel and so on probably worth another £15,000, plus a £3,000-a-year parliamentary allowance, with the addition of a £37,500 tax-free bonus. I reckon he would need £1 million a year to give him that net return. All this because, by accident, by stupidity on the part of the electorate, he has been elected leader of the country and is called the Prime Minister. He has not yet said whether he will keep the money. The journalists have been handing out inspired leaks that the Prime Minister will give it to a charity. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who is a journalist, will find out for me. Our present Prime Minister might be generous and give it to charity, but future Prime Ministers might not be so charitably disposed.
11.45 p.m.
I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale is here. He is one of the best Members of Parliament, and one of the best television political commentators in the country. If he, in pursuit of those activities, were to be awarded £37,500 as the best political commentator, I am fairly certain he 370 would have to pay tax on it. He is not an office holder and he may be entitled to claim that there is a difference. But the Prime Minister is not in this position. He gets a diamond handshake without having to relinquish his office. He is not like the city tycoon directors of companies who, after having ruined a company like Rolls-Royce get out with £30,000 or £40,000 on which they pay part tax. The Prime Minister, unlike them, does not have to give up his job.
On Saturday of this week a plane will leave London Airport bearing the Prime Minister either first to Brussels and then to Strasbourg or first to Strasbourg and then to Brussels.
He will then travel at public expense to Strasbourg and address the European Parliament. I shall not be there. There will be loud clapping when he has finished and then he will collect his £37,500. I cannot think that is right.
I do not believe that any person should be in the position of being able to receive large sums of money as a result of the office he holds. This is creating a dangerous precedent, which is a danger to the integrity of parliamentary democracy and the Civil Service. If the Prime Minister can get such a prize, might not the time come when an established civil servant could be awarded the Stalin Peace Prize or the Lenin Award for Peace and Understanding? Could he not be awarded £30,000 tax-free? I do not think that Lord Butler would recommend him.
The same thing could happen with Spain or, more topically, Malta. Mr. Mintoff could say to one of our top civil servants, "In the interests of peace and understanding between the Maltese and the British people will you use your endeavours to get us a little more out of the British Government and we will award you the Maltese Cross and £37,500, tax-free?" Would the Government allow the civil servant to accept it? I do not think he should be allowed to do so because it is his job and he is paid for it. Some might say he is paid too much. Yet the Prime Minister is allowed to receive this. I have said that there is a vetting committee with one British citizen on it. He is a nice chap—the best Chancellor the Tories ever had—but all the others are foreign gentlemen, actively 371 engaged in bluffing us into the Common Market. I do not think that this is right.
To be fair, I am concerned about this matter, whether it be the present Prime Minister or any future one who is affected. If my Amendment is not accepted, we could have a situation where the present Leader of the Opposition, when he becomes Prime Minister again, is offered £37,500 worth of roubles because he has done a good job in getting peace and understanding with Russia. if that happened, would my right hon. Friend be entitled to receive it? If he did, I can imagine the screams that would come from the Tory Party—[Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale wish to intervene?
§ Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)I thought that my hon. Friend was bringing his remarks to a conclusion, and I wished to offer one or two very brief comments on what he had said which might assist him. If my hon. Friend is willing to give me that opportunity now, he will, of course, be able to make any further observations later. But it may be that my remarks will enable the Committee to proceed with its affairs a little more speedily.
§ Mr. LewisI am very much obliged to my hon. Friend. But I must warn him that I have quite a lot more to say. I am in my hon. Friend's hands. He is welcome to make his points now, provided that I am permitted to conclude my own remarks afterwards.
§ 12 midnight
§ Mr. FootI am grateful to my hon. Friend. In inviting him to conclude his remarks at this point, I was not suggesting that I had the power to prevent him continuing his contribution to the debate later. That is my hon. Friend's right, of course. But I appeal to him and throw myself and possibly others on his mercy. If I put these matters in my own fashion, I am sure that my hon. Friend will listen to what I say and take it into account. Whether I have any success, no one knows. But I shall try.
This discussion is taking place at this late hour not because of the natural and normal malevolence of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Arrangements were made in order to ensure that we had the extremely important debate that we had earlier on 372 the coal industry. I do not say that if matters had not been arranged in this way that debate would not have been possible. But it was satisfactory to both sides of the House that it should take place now. Because that occurred, it did not mean that the Opposition, whatever may have been the view of the Government, regarded the Committee stage of the Bill as a matter of subordinate importance.
Like my hon. Friend, I have participated in debates on Ministerial salaries, which I entirely agree are perfectly proper matters for full debate in the House. Any suggestion from any quarter that debate on such subjects should be suppressed in any way is one with which I would not agree. I think that I would have the acceptance of everybody who remains tonight in saying that.
The question of what is paid to Ministers is of paramount importance and has to be discussed openly. Therefore, I am not making any complaint against my hon. Friend raising these matters. He has been forced to raise them at this hour because of the rearrangement which occurred. We are in agreement in that respect, and I am not making any criticism of him.
Moreover, my hon. Friend said that we are old sparring partners. That is perfectly correct. I accept the honour. My hon. Friend is an awkward customer in the House, and that I regard as a high compliment, because the House of Commons is largely sustained by awkward customers. If all 600, or whatever number it may be, Members were awkward customers, the proceedings of the House would be very difficult. On the other hand, if there were not a very large number of—a considerable number, a certain number, or at any rate a few—awkward customers in the House, the proceedings would be extremely tame and many evil things would be done which are otherwise exposed.
I am not criticising my hon. Friend in any sense whatsoever. Indeed, I regard him as an extremely effective Member of the House of Commons, safeguarding the interests not only of his own constituents but of many people throughout the country whose affairs would not be brought to the attention of the House as a whole if it were not for his pertinacity 373 and determination not be put down by the jeers and sneers of Members in many parts of the House. That takes some doing.
Therefore, my hon. Friend must understand that I am not making this appeal to him because I think that in any sense what he is asking the Committee to do tonight is improper. That is also the reason that I have listened most carefully to the major speeches which he has made on the Amendments which have already been proposed.
On expenses, I think that my hon. Friend has a considerable case. I do not entirely agree with it, but I agree with him—I emphasise this point—when he insists that it is not the business of the House necessarily to accept holus-bolus what the Boyle Committee or any other Committee recommends. This House has the right to examine and to vote against any proposals which may come from any quarter, whether it is from Her Majesty's Government, Brussels, or anywhere else. I hope that that is well understood by the Government when we come to later legislation which may be presented to us.
I have never been in favour of the proposition that, because some Committee—even in paragraph 121 which was quoted by the hon. Gentleman—says that it wants these matters to be accepted as a whole, we should necessarily accept them. I understand the reasons that the Committee recommended that it was desirable for these matters to be accepted as a whole, if possible; but, of course, the House of Commons always has the right, and sometimes the duty, to unwrap a package to see what each particular item looks like. My hon. Friend has been doing that tonight, and he has proposed, or proposes—we do not know yet—to continue to do it at a later date.
So my hon. Friend had a formidable case to make on the question of the expenses, and I hope that the remarks that he has made and that others may make on these subjects will be taken into account by future committees that examine these questions and that his contribution to the debate will have its effect in influencing the way in which future committees that examine these matters look into these questions. Certainly every committee of this nature should start by examining the debates that 374 take place in the House of Commons on such subjects.
The question that my hon. Friend is now discussing on the new Clause is a matter to be considered although, as he knows perfectly well, this matter has been considered in other contexts and there have been other committees that have looked at it, and there have been recommendations about whether Members of Parliament should have their earnings, whatever they may be, from other sources taken into account in the estimate of their salaries or whether they should be called upon to declare them. I had better declare an interest here. Certainly if my hon. Friend's new Clause were to be carried fully into effect, it would have some influence on my income. If that is not so, I withdraw my declaration of interest; but if it is, I am willing to acknowledge it.
However, having said all that, I would add that my hon. Friend has us at his mercy. I know his capacities very well. He has several Amendments on the Order Paper, three or four batches of which are to be called by the Chair if they are reached. If he wishes, he can keep us here for two or three hours discussing these matters. As I have said, if he wishes to do so I cannot dispute his right to do so. I hope that he will not, because I think that he will injure the case he is seeking to make.
As I have said, I do not scorn his case at all. It is perfectly correct, and my hon. Friend could perfectly well argue, that if it had not been for the rearrangement of the debate and if the discussion on these matters had taken place at an earlier hour in the proceedings of the House, many hon. Members from both sides of the House would have contributed to the debate. Therefore, he may perfectly well argue that he is discharging tonight the duty which other hon. Members would have joined with him in discharging if that had been the case. That is a perfectly arguable point. Now that I have argued it so strongly I hope that my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to argue it.
It is also the case that, because of the re-arrangement, the hour and the situation—and I have listened to my hon. Friend most patiently and with interest for a considerable time—if he were to carry through the whole proposition of 375 debating all the Amendments and Clauses he has proposed to raise, we could be here for a very long time. Far from that furthering the argument he wishes to present about Ministerial salaries and the Bill, it may have the opposite effect.
I hope that my hon. Friend will consider whether it is not in the best interests of his case on these matters, and whether it is not in the best interests of the House, that he should restrain himself. I know that at times that is very difficult for many of us to do when others wish these matters to be pursued. As I have said on many occasions, I believe that one of the great virtues of this House is that it protects the rights of minorities to say what they think and, on many occasions, the rights of a single Member to say what he wants to say, much to the inconvenience of everyone else in the whole place. That is the virtue of the place, and certainly I would never wish to take any step which would injure that.
I believe that my hon. Friend will have plenty of opportunities. We are only at the beginning of this part of our Session and the Session is yet young. I do not want my hon. Friend to lose his faculties or to injure his resources at this early date because we shall need his assistance on even more important questions. I appeal to him therefore, quite sincerely, in the interest of hon. Members on both sides. He will not serve the purpose he has at heart in raising these matters or the purpose of injuring the Government's position—a worthy cause in which I hope we shall be joined at a reasonable date if the Government pluck up the courage to introduce the major legislation. Then, unlike now, we shall have hon. Members from both sides taking part; two major bodies of opinion and the opinion of the country will be represented by strong phalanxes of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
It will be impossible to avoid all-night sittings on that occasion, not because of malevolence of the Government but because of the Government's sheer incompetence and misunderstanding of the country's proper interests. When we deal with those matters, I hope that my hon. Friend will join us in pursuing them. I 376 hope that tonight he will not decide to conduct his one-man campaign on these matters for the next two or three hours.
He will not serve the argument which he has already presented most powerfully. I hope he will be willing to let the rest of the Bill go through speedily under the normal procedures—not only because it was agreed through the usual channels, although part of the arrangement was that we should have a major debate at the earliest possible time when the House met on a topic of first-class importance, the situation in the coal industry.
This should not deprive any hon. Member of his rights and I do not believe it has. My hon. Friend has the House at his mercy. If he wants, he can pursue it throughout the night and we have no power effectively to stop him. But I ask him whether he would not serve the interests of the House, his own cause and his reputation better by allowing the matter to proceed swiftly. When I refer to his reputation I am not in any way seeking to criticise him for what he has done, because hon. Members' rights depend upon hon. Members like himself who are prepared, often with only a few others and sometimes alone, to make unpopular speeches. I am not protesting against unpopular speeches but I wonder whether it would not be better to proceed along the lines I have suggested.
§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw)As the months go on, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) in his new rôle—to which I welcome him—and I may not necessarily agree with each other, but I do agree with much of what he just said. I thank him for his generosity in recognising the arrangements which were made for this Bill, and the reasons that it is being considered late at night. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) for recognising these reasons.
I particularly agree that the hon. Member for West Ham, North or any other hon. Member has a perfect right to pursue any case he wishes as long as he wishes. I hope that the hon. Member will recognise my acceptance of this in the fact that I have not left the Chamber, 377 although I might have done so, throughout the time that he has been addressing the House.
As he requested, I immediately declare an interest in this Bill. It would be absurd if I did not—although I do not deserve some of the strictures he put upon some of my colleagues, because I do not have one of the houses.
I agree that this question is very important, that this is an important Bill, which should be discussed. I also agree that the House does not have to accept what the Boyle Committee or any other Committee puts before it. The Government, having received this independent Report, however, thought it right to accept it in total and so to recommend to the House. It is for the House to decide whether to do so, and that is the purpose of these debates.
I do not believe that this new Clause is necessary. Over the years, there has been a clearly established principle that Ministers' private interests should not conflict, or appear to conflict, with their public duties. This sound principle has been strictly observed by Ministers of all Governments. They are instructed to conduct their affairs accordingly, and I believe hat they do so.
I can speak only for myself. No one has ever suggested to me, as they would of course to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, that they should pay me anything for writing. That would be an absurd suggestion. However, no doubt people who have paid me something recently for appearing on television, but because I am a Minister and not entitled to take such a fee, they do not do so. This is strictly in accordance with the principle.
There are other principles which I feel strongly. I could outline my views about the clear and established principles for Ministers, and it is important that Ministers of all Governments should adhere to them. I believe that they do and that the principles are clearly understood. For these reasons, therefore, the new Clause is unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.
§ Mr. Arthur LewisIt was a pity that I gave away to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) because although he adduced his views in his usual charming and friendly way, that enabled the Leader of the House to 378 reply to the whole debate on the new Clause, with many aspects of which I had not yet dealt when I gave way to my hon. Friend.
I am convinced that we have in the right hon. Gentleman the best Leader of the House for certainly 27 years, the length of time I have been an hon. Member, and I do not say that in a patronising way. However, we have in my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale an even better future Leader of the House. Having said that, I must now be rather naughty and tell my hon. Friend that although I love and respect him, I cannot respond to his approach to me on this issue because, no doubt innocently, he misled me.
My hon. Friend told me that I could raise this subject on another occasion, but that is not so. He may have in mind a matter on which we shall join forces, but apart from that—because that matter, if it is the one I have in mind, does not come within the ambit of this new Clause—the opportunity to raise this subject has now passed, for by letting Clause 2 slip through the whole subject of Ministerial salaries will be dealt with by Resolution of the House of Commons, and there will be no more Boyle Committees.
§ Mr. WhitelawIt has been made clear, and I think accepted in all parts of the Committee, that one of the principles set out when the Boyle Committee or the Review Body was given the task of looking into Ministers' and hon. Members' salaries was the fact that this would perhaps need to be done once in every Parliament of a normal length. I suggest, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that there will be no more Boyle Committees.
§ Mr. LewisI stand corrected. I should have said that there will he no more legislation in the form of a Bill. Never again shall we have this opportunity to table Amendments and to go through the stages and procedure of a Bill. With future Boyle Committees we shall have Orders in Council which. although enabling debates to take place, will not be amendable in the way that a Bill can be changed.
I had hoped that my hon. Friend would deal with some of the points which I made in support of the new Clause. I regret to tell the Leader of the House 379 that he rather misled the Committee, although I accept that Ministers never have received and I hope never will receive fees for television appearances, writing articles and so on. I accept that, but the matter was not taken any further. The Prime Minister has not yet said that he will not accept the £37½ million which has been offered to him if not by a foreign Government, by a group of persons representing foreign Governments. The right hon. Gentleman has not declined to accept that offer.
I want to be fair to the Leader of the House. If he bears with me for a few moments he will hear the substantive point that I am trying to make. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at Schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill, he will see that today, at 12.25 a.m., among the people who are not Ministers, there are persons who are receiving from writing, from television and from radio large sums of money by virtue of the office they hold.
I am not suggesting that my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member should have to declare his earnings inside or outside the House, but it is a statement of fact that one of the former Leaders of the House, the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), got a contract to write his memoirs. He signed that contract as a Minister, in anticipation of what he would get when he resigned from office. That ex-Minister condemned—not in the House—Members for accepting a salary increase. I do not know what it is, but it is reported in the Press that he has a large income. He has not disclosed it. Various estimates have been made of the amount, ranging from £100,000 to £150,000, but he would not have got that money as a Mr. Crossman, or a Mr. Smith, or a Mr. Black, or a Mr. Blue. He would not have got the money had he not been an ex-Minister.
There is nothing personal about this. The same thing can be said of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown. The noble Lord was a Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and Foreign Minister. Lord George-Brown signed contracts and got large amounts of money by virtue of the fact that he was a Minister. No doubt the present Prime Minister has got it laid on if he follows precedent. I am not personalising. It could be 380 Macmillan, Eden, Churchill, Attlee or Wilson. It could be any of them. Each and every one of them, having got the rate for the job, by virtue of his office cashed in and made large amounts of money which he did not declare at the time and has not declared since.
The Leader of the House said that Ministers could not do that whilst in office. He is right. I am putting this on a fair and honest basis. I am not politicalising. I am being factually true. Here is an anachronistic situation, in that the Leader of the House cannot earn money from writing, television or radio, but the Leader of the Opposition, who receives almost as much as the Leader of the House, can, and does.
The Chief Opposition Whip, who will get well over 210 per cent. increase in salary, will be able to go on radio and television and get that which Ministers cannot get. I do not think it right because I do not think that any of these persons—I am not picking out names but am concentrating on the principle—should have the opportunity of cashing in on their Ministerial or public appointments and getting large sums.
12.30 a.m.
I read in the Press that a former Prime Minister got £250,000. He said that that is incorrect and that it has not been disclosed. I do not want it disclosed. But he was paid well at his job and would not have been able to write these memoirs unless he had been Prime Minister. I am not saying that because it was him. It is the same with Lord Avon, with Sir Winston Churchill, with Harold Macmillan and with Lord Attlee.
I do not think it right that there is a situation of a kind of hidden handout by which they say, "While you are Prime Minister you cannot and must not dirty your hands by taking hand-outs from public relations firms, from private concerns, from radio, television and the rest, but it is all right if you give a hint or come to an arrangement whereby if and when you leave office you will get, in effect a postponed payment". I exonerate and commiserate with the Leader of the House. He has not got a house. I like him and I do not want to wish it on him if he does not want it.
381 We have a Leader of the Opposition who will get 270 per cent. increase on his old basic salary which will go up from £4,500 plus his £1,250 to £9,500 plus £3,000 expenses, which is £12,500. he can write and go on television and do the work he wants to do and in total can get more than Ministers of the Crown, and that surely cannot be right. I am not concerned with whether Lord Boyle said it or not.
It is the same with the Opposition Chief Whip, who is getting £5,000, which goes up to £7,500 plus £3,000, making £10,500, which is a 210 per cent. increase. Good luck to him. He is a good friend of mine and I am glad to see that Cockneys are coming into their own. I am a Cockney and I pay tribute to him. But here we have a situation in which he can earn perhaps another £4,500 a year. There is nothing to stop him doing that—and the only reason he would get it would be by virtue of his office.
Here comes the crux. The present Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues will not be in those positions long. They will be on the other side. The Government are looking after their own future and are seeing to it that when the Prime Minister, in a couple of years, becomes Leader of the Opposition, he will be all right. He will get £12,500 a year, a car and a chauffeur. He will then be able to write his memoirs, go on radio and television, and get his plums by virtue of the office he once held. The people object, not to others getting the right salary for the job, but to what looks like hidden corruption. The people think that Ministers are feathering their own nests. Parliament is not now held in the high esteem in which it was once held. The people now think that all Members come to Parliament for what they can get out of it.
§ Mr. WhitelawThe hon. Member has raised a point which I must seek to answer. The Labour Government first introduced, after the Report of the Lawrence Committee, the salary for the Opposition Chief Whip, of which I was the first recipient. I believe that this was a perfectly proper gesture on the part of the Labour Government very early in their period of office, because they believed that that office deserved that remuneration. At that time, when the Labour Government introduced that 382 salary for me, there could not have been any question that they were looking forward to a time when they would be in opposition, because they had been in office for only a short time. It is only reasonable that I should say that, as I was the first recipient of that salary and I am the best person to say it. I am entitled not only to say it but also strongly to resent the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that members of this Government, in proposing these increases, are feathering their nests and preparing the way for when they will be in opposition; nor did the Labour Government so act.
§ Mr. LewisI do not say that, but the people say it. They say that Ministers are feathering their own nests. The Labour Government introduced a nominal salary for the Opposition Chief Whip and the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition got £4,500, and the Opposition Chief Whip got £3,750, plus £1,250, as against the £3,250 for back-bench Members. The proposed increases of 210 per cent. and 217 per cent. in the salaries of these members of the Opposition, as against the increases of the Law Officers, who are not even getting 38 per cent., cannot be right morally or politically. It is not in the best interests of parliamentary government, because the Leader of the House would not dream of accepting a fee for anything he did; nor would any other member of the Government. However, although the Leader of the House cannot accept a fee, other hon. Members can.
The time will come when the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House will be in opposition. Whoever is the Leader of the Opposition—it might be the present Leader of the House—would rightly claim £12,500. He would also claim a car and chauffeur, and people would say, "This is the man responsible for this. He did it to look after himself". It is not right, at a time when the miners are denied a reasonable income, that these things should happen.
I am not concerned with the question of Members of Parliament. I am concerned with office holders, present and future, who draw substantial salaries and are able, by virtue of their office, to earn probably another £3,000 or £4,000. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition says that it costs him £20,000 a year to run his office. I realise that 383 Transport House provides him with quite a lot of assistants and pays their salaries. I do not see why the taxpayers should pay the salaries of Tory Party staff when the Tory Party is in opposition. People may say, "Why did you not complain when the Labour Party was in office?" Transport House contributes to the cost of the Opposition. But why should the taxpayers pay the cost of running a Tory political office whose members have not been elected and, in addition—
§ The Temporary Chairman (Sir Ronald Russell)Order. There is nothing about a political office in the new Clause.
§ Mr. LewisMy Clause refers to:
The salary payable to any person under Schedules 1 and 2 to this Act shall be reduced by the amount of any fee or payment he may obtain while in receipt of such salary.…Among the office holders will be the Leader of the Opposition, the Chief Whip, certain Ministers and two Whips. They would be able to get the salaries which are quoted, expenses and an outside income.The Leader of the House agrees with me that Ministers should not be allowed, directly or indirectly, to receive other income by virtue of their office, nor is it done, and if he were offered a fee to explain this debate on television he would return it. If he discussed it on television with me, I should probably be offered £10 and he would be offered £100, because he is better looking.
§ The Temporary ChairmanOrder. This is getting beyond the Clause.
§ Mr. LewisWith respect, the Clause says:
The salary payable to any person under Schedules 1 and 2 to this Act shall be reduced by the amount of any fee or payment he may obtain while in receipt of such salary for writing, or television or radio performances.…I am giving reasons why the Clause should be read a second time and giving examples of how office-holders can receive, in addition to their salaries, bigger fees than others for appearing on television. All I am saying is that they should be treated alike, fairly and properly. I was explaining, within the terms of the Clause, how I should be offered £10 and the Leader of the House would be offered £100 to debate the Bill on 384 television. He would rightly refuse it, saying," I am receiving a salary as a Minister, and it is wrong for me to receive this fee." Indeed, the fact is that he would not be offered it. But the man on the other side is also receiving a salary because of his office, not because he is a Member of Parliament, and would get his £100. That cannot be right, morally, politically or on any other basis.I am not playing party politics, and I am not getting at one side or the other, because we do the same with civil servants. The Leader of the House has a limited staff. If one of his secretaries did a broadcast about his duties, or wrote an article, he would not be allowed to keep the fees. The Leader of the House would rightly say, "You are a civil servant being paid for the job."
A dangerous precedent could be set here. The civil servant could say, "If it's good enough for Mr. X or Mr. Y, why is it not good enough for me?". I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this serious point. The people are passing comments on the situation. The Press has also passed comments, and the situation is wrong. No Minister of the Crown should accept anything that directly or indirectly derives from his office until he has been out of office for, say, two years. Official papers are not revealed for 30 years. My hon. Friend said that it affected him, but with great respect it does not. The new Clause applies not to Members of Parliament but Ministers and office holders.
Unless the Minister can say that he will look at this again, I shall vote even though no other hon. Member supports me.
§ Question put and negatived.