UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 1978

  • Gordon Oakes – 1978 Speech on Computer Macrosystems

    Below is the text of the speech made by Gordon Oakes, the then Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science, in the House of Commons on 1 August 1978.

    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Hunter) both on his physical endurance—surviving the night in order to raise this important matter—and on his persistence. In his opening words my hon. Friend suggested that the House might be ​ surprised that he dared to venture into the field of computers. I am delighted that a man with industrial experience ventures into this field. Indeed, it is a field in which the ordinary member of the public with industrial experience has something entirely relevant to offer if we are to control and tame creations which should serve the public interest instead of the public interest serving them.

    In so far as my hon. Friend argues for careful consideration of the pros and cons before one embarks on any computer-based project, I agree with him in both principle and practice, but it he argues, as he seemed to imply later, that we should not examine the possible roles of computers or use them for legitimate purposes when these are established, I must disagree with him firmly. One cannot put the clock back. One must make the best possible use of technological progress while taking full account of its implications.

    Computers, complex though they are, are a tool—perhaps the most sophisticated tool yet available to us, but still no more than a means to an end. They can be misused by being harnessed to purposes which are either suspect in themselves or are inherently unsuitable to be pursued by computers. But when they are used properly they offer vast benefits, especially in information, communications, management, research and many other fields. Their effect is not only to reduce costs and increase the range and quality of service but also by so doing to enable skilled labour to be used more extensively and productively.

    Coming to terms with the computer will require constant vigilance, not least about the effect on our individual liberties. As my hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) will be aware, the Younger Committee on privacy reported in 1972, and in a White Paper published in 1975 on computers and privacy the Government stated that computer systems in the public sector were operated in accordance with administrative rules which provided substantial safeguards against any improper use but concluded that there was a need to establish permanent machinery not only to keep the situation under review but also to seek to ensure that all present and future ​ computer systems holding personal information, in both public and private sectors, were operated with adequate safeguards for the privacy of the individual.

    Nor are the Government unmindful of the underlying economic and social implications of the technological changes which are now occurring in the computer field, particularly, as my hon. Friend said, in microelectronics. He will be aware that the Prime Minister has recently made clear the Government’s concern, and much action is being taken on this front.

    The Government have a wide interest and involvement in the use of computers. They must have, because if we do not take full advantage of their potentialities, we can be sure that our competitors abroad will. It would not be right for me today to discuss all the beneficial uses of computers, but I believe that the House is aware of the many fields in which computers now provide an invaluable service. It would not be too much to say that if the Government and their agencies did not employ computers, and large computers at that, to assist with scientific research, we should miss many discoveries of great interest and great potential importance to the economic and social welfare of our people.

    The important point about the related technologies of computers and telecommunications is that they are moving very rapidly. Each change makes more things possible or reduces the cost of doing them. A dozen years ago, there was widespread scepticism about the use of computers in any information process. Since then they have become widely established for the typesetting of publications and the production of printed indexes. Their use in the generation and handling of library records, especially catalogues, has grown so rapidly that the question is no longer whether they should be used but what combination of local, co-operative and national services can bring the greatest benefit from their use.

    In what is known as “information retrieval “—an area in which I believe my hon. Friend is deeply interested—the scene has changed significantly over the last few years with the evolution of what are called “on-line” systems, by which a user can question remote files of information direct and conduct a dialogue with them until he has the information he ​ needs. No doubt many hon. Members are aware that the British Post Office is already providing a commercially successful service which links United Kingdom users to 70 or more files of scientific, technical, economic and commercial information held in California, and at a cost which a large number of users, especially in industry, are prepared to pay. A Post Office spokesman recently said publicly that users are now connected to the system for about 600 hours a week all told. That probably means at least 2,000 searches for information a week. Access is also available, at comparable cost, to nearly 20 files held in Rome by the space documentation service of the European Space Agency, the membership of which includes the United Kingdom.

    The Government have played their part in the creation of a European network for scientific and technical information, using up-to-date technology. The new network, EURONET, is expected to come into being next year and will provide easy and wide access to computer-held files in other EEC capitals. Let me give a few rough figures. At present, the “communications” element of cost in reaching California from London is about £13 an hour. New linking equipment, which will soon be in service, will reduce this cost to £8 an hour. The cost of reaching any EEC capital through EURONET has been fixed at less than £3 an hour. The potential attractions of EURONET are such that several non-EEC countries have already asked whether they can be linked to it. In due course, EURONET will be absorbed in to a public-service network handling all kinds of traffic, not just scientific and technical information.

    From what I have said my hon. Friend will realise that it would be possible for this country to become wholly reliant on foreign sources of supply—in the United States and in Western Europe, where several countries, notably France and the Federal Republic of Germany, are spending a considerable amount of money on the creation of new files of information and on providing access to these and other files through computer-based service agencies. But we ought not to become dangerously dependent in such a sensitive area.

    Accordingly, the British Library and the Department of Industry have cooperated in the creation of two informa- ​ tion service agencies, which are known as BLAISE and Info-line. BLAISE—that is, the British Library Automated Information Service—has been created largely to provide a national cataloguing facility. In creating it, the British Library has responded to sustained pressure from librarians. But it is also providing an information retrieval service in medicine. Info-line, which comes into operation later this year, will offer information retrieval services mainly of interest to industry and will build up a range of services distinctly different from those of any other service supplier. It is an interesting experiment in partnership.

    I can assure my hon. Friend that all the Government action that I have mentioned results from careful weighing up of evidence for and against it. As my Department has made clear to him on several occasions, its own direct expenditure on information retrieval has been concentrated to a large extent on research, now financed by the R and D department of the British Library. The scepticism with which use of computers was originally viewed was backed by a widespread desire to discover, through research, what computer techniques could and could not do, and how far their use was economically justifiable, or might become justifiable, as technology advanced and comparative costs changed. We were accordingly prepared to support a variety of research on computer applications in order to establish useful data for decision making.

    The research of this period has largely run its course and has made a substantial impact on thinking among information suppliers and users in this country. Partly because of it, United Kingdom users, I believe, are particularly well informed about computer-based services, what services exist, how to use them effectively and economically, what day-to-day problems they create and how these can be overcome.

    My hon. Friend mentioned specifically and in some detail the Scientific Documentation Centre, which is contained in his constituency. It would seem to me better if those in charge of that centre, perhaps along with my hon. Friend, were to discuss these matters with the British Library rather than be subject to a debate in this House. I understand that the British Library board has suggested ​ several times that my hon. Friend and Dr. Davison should discuss their complaints with the British Library, but that offer has not yet been taken up.

    I also understand that a Scottish member of the British Library board offered to take up Dr. Davison’s case for support of research and put it before the board. I am quite certain that it is the British Library board which should ultimately make a decision on the particular value of the manual operations of a service such as the Scientific Documentation Centre.

    My hon. Friend also mentioned the Oxford evaluation study. Again I take the view, as does the British Library, that, if Dr. Davison feels that his interpretation of the findings is correct, the best course would be to allow the results to be published and independently assessed. This is a sensitive area which is far better dealt with in that way rather than to be subject to a parliamentary debate.

    On a number of occasions my hon. Friend has argued that the Government have neglected manual operations and have placed their trust blindly in highly sophisticated computers. I hope that from what I have said he will accept that our trust is not blind but is based on practical reasoning, research and experiment. Frankly, I do not think that any public inquiry into this matter is necessary. I believe that we must continue in the way in which we are progressing at present. If there is scope for manual operations in all this, the case will have to be made on its merits, just as the case for computers has been made. If sensible proposals on this are to be made to any Government Department or agency, I am quite sure that they will be given proper consideration, as, indeed has happened hereto.

  • Adam Hunter – 1978 Speech on Computer Macrosystems

    Below is the text of the speech made by Adam Hunter, the then Labour MP for Dunfermline, in the House of Commons on 1 August 1978.

    The House will agree that we have waited a very long time for this Adjournment debate. It has been a long, long night. However, I am glad indeed to be able to raise this subject even at this hour. This matter is of great relevance to the public. However, I am always surprised to find that so few people in Government and outside it are interested in the subject of computer macrosystems.

    The Minister must think it strange that an hon. Member with my industrial background should want to debate computer macrosystems. I do not blame him for that. His Department will know, however, that I have dared to venture into this area of information retrieval services over a period of years. I have asked Questions and have corresponded with the Secretary of State for Education and Science and officials of the British Library. But it has not been possible to elicit what success research and development in computerised information services for science and technology have achieved or what the costs would be if the British Library automated information service materialised.

    I have no particular interest in this subject. The debate stems from a constituency interest. The Scientific Documentation Centre is in my constituency. The research director of that centre has been battling for years to prove that manually operated retrieval services are more efficient and less costly than computerised systems.

    The centre has been established for 15 years. In its first 10 years it set up five major information retrieval projects. First, it set up the largest British information base of its kind, containing 1,500,000 coded references. These cover most of the subjects of spectrometry, analytical chemistry, computers and related subjects, information retrieval librarianship and about 40 narrower subjects. Secondly, this information base can be used for retrospective searches, which have the same cost effectiveness ​ advantage as the SDC’s current awareness services.

    Thirdly, this information base can supply complete bibliographies covering whole subject sections with the same cost effectiveness advantage as the SDC’s current awareness services. Fourthly, the SDC has collected the largest generally available collection of spectra and spectral data. A complete range of spectra services operate from this spectra data base. Fifthly, the SDC’s current awareness and SDI services give higher recall than their computerised equivalents at lower unit costs. They supply more users than any of the Government-subsidised SDI services.

    The long-term aim of the SDC is to become established as a major supplier of scientific information. To do that, it is necessary for it to transform part of its information base to the indexing of publications. That requires money and is one reason for the debate.

    Being funded by taxpayers’ money through the allocation of grants from the British Library research and development department would not be desired by the SDC if it were not for the fact that the British Library research and development department’s grants go to organisations to assist them with research and development of computer information retrieval services. If other systems are to receive financial support, why should not the SDC receive support? Why is there this unfair competition? Why should not the SDC get support for research in order to compare costs of the different methods of handling information?

    The office of scientific and technical information, a Government Department, spent large sums of public money on certain computerised information projects, especially those produced by the United Kingdom Chemical Information Service. Dr. Davison, the research director of the SDC, has constantly criticised this information service. From evidence, it seems that the SDC was able to compete successfully with the United Kingdom Chemical Information Service as long ago as 1974. The OSTI has now disappeared. I understand that its staff was transferred to the research and development department of the British Library.

    Policies do not appear to have changed. Several reports have been published. One, ​ the Oxford evaluation, did not comment favourably on the work that UKCIS contributed over a period of time. It showed up the ineffectiveness of the work relative to other services. The SDC’s experience with the British Library research and development department has been no different from what it was with OSTI. The nature of complaints voiced by the SDC remain the same.

    Over many years, several Secretaries of State for the Department of Education and Science have been involved. The present Leader of the Opposition was Secretary of State when I asked a Question in the House about this matter. A considerable number of issues give me reason for concern about how the present position has arisen.

    For example, the Oxford evaluation showed the advantages of systems based on people as against computers. It cost the Department over £40,000, and probably more. It has never been published because the Department would not insist on misleading statements supporting the removal of the computer systems. The Oxford and Birmingham reports, which were paid for from departmental funds, hide the advantages of manual systems and show the Department’s pro-computer policy to be ill based.

    A recent report blithely claims economic viability within three to five years for a computer on-line network which the British Library has supported. The same type of claim was, no doubt, made frequently of the Swansea centre when it was opened. A recent report, supporting computerised veterinary information services, concludes that all information is recorded already and will be available through the network. The report also admits on the same page that no system is able to provide all the material that the scientists want and which is known to exist.

    High expenditure on computer systems from the Department of Education and Science by OSTI and by the British Library research and development department over a decade has been accompanied by a refusal of funds for competing systems based on people. This is despite substantial independent evidence that systems operated by people are much more efficient in retrieving the information required.

    Are the Department and the British Library research and development department in a position to deny that 61 per cent. of the money awarded by the funding Department was, in one five-year period alone, awarded to organisations associated with participants on the committee at the head of that funding Department? If not, it means that 61 per cent. of funds was awarded to people with an organisational, financial interest. I am sure the Minister will agree that in most situations this would nut be allowed.

    The Department awarded 61 per cent. of its funds to organisations associated with a tiny select body of information scientists on its principal committee, but there was no representation from the one organisation in the United Kingdom which has specialised in this work for 15 years —far longer than any of these computer systems have existed. Indeed, ideas initiated in grant applications from this body, seem, after rejection by the Department, to have been supported later in organisations associated with members of the controlling committee of the funding Department. If such a state of affairs exists, can we be surprised that my constituent condemns the grant allocation system?

    I have written many letters to officials engaged in the funding Department asking questions in an effort to establish whether the refereeing committees awarding these grants were truly independent, but I have received no satisfactory answer. This can be compared with a situation in a local authority where a secret committee of unnamed people was allowed to allocate the authority’s tenders. That comparable state of affairs would not be tenable in any local authority. Why should it be acceptable in a funding Department using taxpayers’ money?

    Is the Minister of State able to comment on a report coming from a recent official meeting of British users of online systems at which one of the main speakers supporting the British Government-funded on-line system made an extraordinary statement about objectionable pressures being put on staff to use on-line computer systems when otherwise they would not have used them? At the same meeting, one of the operators of a Government-supported American-based on-line computer system was astonishingly ​ critical of the quality of the data bases available by computer.

    It has been drawn to my notice that evidence is available regarding a degree of censorship by the British Library or its officials of a report highly critical of a senior official who made allegedly untrue, misleading and damaging statements in this controversy. The suggestion of such a thing happening should be enough for my hon. Friend the Minister of State to emphasise the seriousness of censorship to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, especially when it is levelled at an organisation such as the British Library which controls the nation’s storehouse of scientific and technical knowledge.

    The time is too short and the complexity of the subject so great that I am unable to treat it in as detailed a fashion as I should like. I trust that, from what I have said, the Minister of State can recommend to the Secretary of State that a public inquiry is essential to throw proper light on these matters, to ensure that any faults in the past are removed and to ensure that future policy on support for computer systems and research and development for them is properly in the public interest.

    It is accepted today that employment and social values are of high importance. To continue a policy which uses substantial amounts of taxpayers’ money to build computer systems to put people out of work and which do the job more expensively and less effectively than the people they replace is completely against common sense.

    No doubt, many who read my part in this debate will call it Ludditism. It certainly is not. The debate is necessary simply to show that not all computerised systems are effective or cheap to run. Computer systems will tend to be successful and economic in situations where the data or information which they hold is used frequently. They will tend to be unsuccessful and too expensive for situations where data or information is used infrequently. They will tend to be successful in dealing with material in respect of which the unit manipulated is short, and unsuccessful and very expensive when dealing with material in respect of which the unit manipulated is long.

    I have asked questions also about telecommunication on-line costs in order to gather information about on-line systems, particularly abroad, and the answer which I received from the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, was not very good. Not only has my constituent been complaining about the cost of telecommunication on-line systems, but other people are now writing or telephoning to me from the London area to say how wrong my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was to reply as he did. It seems, therefore, that even in America computer systems are very costly, and I understand that the cost of searching for data or information from any of the great American computer centres is extremely high.

    I conclude with something which someone has already said to me—”Employ jobless graduates, not mindless computers.”

  • Kenneth Marks – 1978 Speech on Festivals at Stonehenge

    Below is the text of the speech made by Kenneth Marks, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, in the House of Commons on 31 July 1978.

    I wish to thank the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Hamilton) for his unfailing courtesy in his dealings with my Department about solstice events at Stonehenge —one of our most important monuments, if not the most important monument—and for his generally understanding attitude to the difficulties that face us all—government, local authorities, the police and local people—in this matter. Although the hon. Gentleman has spoken strongly tonight, I agree that he is justified in so doing.

    Last year’s debate on Stonehenge ended at 5 a.m. This debate will end at about 1 a.m. Perhaps tonight we should have invited the druids and the festival folk to come to listen to this debate and then to go on to the Terrace to watch the sun rise between the stones of County Hall and St. Thomas’s Hospital.

    In my speech almost exactly a year ago I said:

    “I should like to make it clear, to avoid misunderstanding, that the Department has neither encouraged nor condoned the free festival at Stonehenge. It is unauthorised and entirely unwelcome.”—[Official Report, 27th July 1978; Vol. 936, c. 903–4.]

    That is still the case, but I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about the need to try to improve the position.
    Let me try to summarise what happened this year. The Department erected a dannert wire triangle around the monument of Stonehenge. The Wiltshire police guarded the monument from 16th June until 27th June. The vanguard of the festival people arrived on 16th June and again encamped in a field to the east of the Fargo Plantation owned by the National Trust and farmed by Mr. Wort. Most of the time it was wet and rather chilly. This probably kept the attendance this year to about 2,000.

    The site of the encampment is of archaeological importance as there are burial mounds there and it forms part of the “cursus”. Less damage was done to farm and woodland than in 1977—the National Trust suggest approximately £1,000 worth. The Trust has promised to provide a detailed costing in a few weeks’ time. The Stonehenge circle was open ​ and free to all on the day following the summer solstice; the druids held a midday ceremony there and this was followed by a gathering attended by about 250 festival folk. All passed off uneventfully. Probably because the larger recumbent stones were covered with tarpaulin, negligible damage appears to have been done to the monument. By 27th June only a handful of festival folk were left and the dannert wire around the main site was removed on 28th June.

    Although the free festival can be said to have passed off without damage to the monument or to life and limb, no one who was involved with events there can be entirely satisfied. Certainly not my Department, which had to spend thousands of pounds for police services and on the erection of dannert wire which made the immediate area look like a concentration camp; not the general public, who saw all this; not the police, who had to deploy precious manpower day after day on patrolling trespassers; not those attending the festival, who claim that, against their will, they had to squat illegally in insanitary conditions; not the National Trust, which saw its property damaged; and finally, but by no means least, not the tenant, Mr. Wort, whose farming was again disrupted for three weeks and who bore the brunt of the damage.

    The hon. Member for Salisbury suggested an ex gratia payment to the tenants of the Trust whose land was invaded, in particular Mr. Wort. I have every sympathy with Mr. Wort and others whose property was damaged. As I sought to make clear last year, my Department is under no legal obligation to them and to make payments to them raises issues of considerable importance. Nevertheless, I accept the hon. Member’s argument that there are very special circumstances in this case and although I can give no firm commitment about it—there will have to be a number of negotiations—I shall certainly consider very carefully with my noble Friend Lady Birk what he has said and shall do all I can. I can go no further at present, but I hope to receive a detailed costing from the National Trust soon.

    The hon. Gentleman has suggested that we should let these people on to the Department’s land. We considered this carefully, and this year we did not fence all the Department’s land, but the festival ​ folk still did not go on it. There are problems. There is no water, though I expect that that could be dealt with. It is archaeologically very sensitive and is very close to the monument.

    The hon. Gentleman has also suggested that a form of licensing system is the answer to the problems, but that was not the view of the majority of members of the working group on pop festivals in their second report published in January. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State told the House on 19th January that the Government share that view.

    This sort of trouble is so rare nowadays that it would be inappropriate to use the Night Assemblies Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That could have repercussions on many other peaceful events throughout the country.
    I said that the Department’s land is archaeologically sensitive, but so is the land on which the festival folk camped. Miss Mellor of the Festival Welfare Services, to which the Home Office has given a grant, through the National Council of Social Services, distributed maps showing the various barrows and processional routes. These, together with notes urging people to have consideration for the sites, were helpful and, as far as I know, there was no damage to any site.

    There would appear to be three options for future years. The first would be to seek to mount a really massive police exercise in the hope of breaking the habit of annual festivals at Stonehenge. I do not think that such an exercise would be feasible or successful and I think this course must be rejected out of hand. The second is for my Department to continue to safeguard its land as in the past. Obviously, Stonehenge must be protected, not only from these festivals, but from all the other visitors. But as I have already acknowledged, the effect of doing this is less than satisfactory to all the parties involved.

    The third option—and it is the one that I and my colleague propose to adopt—is to seek further discussions with the Trust and the local authorities, including the police, to see whether other arrangements for accommodating the festival can be made. Exactly how and where I honestly do not know. We shall, however, seek genuinely to find a solution.

  • Michael Hamilton – 1978 Speech on Festivals at Stonehenge

    Below is the text of the speech made by Michael Hamilton, the then Conservative MP for Salisbury, in the House of Commons on 31 July 1978.

    I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for being here at a late hour to consider the problems of Stonehenge. I wish that it had been possible to spare him. But, as he knows, the difficulties arising from the annual solstice celebrations have not abated. It is the Government alone who can improve matters.

    In March I wrote to Lady Birk, who has responsibility for ancient monuments, ​ asking her whether I would be on my feet, yet again, in this Chamber after this year’s summer solstice. I asked her whether there were any grounds for believing that what had happened in three-successive years would not recur. In the event, troubles did recur. I cannot speak too highly of the Wiltshire police—of their patience, humanity and efficiency.

    Despite the efforts of the police, at dawn on 16th June the same padlocked gate was forced and the same farmer has suffered heavy damage to field and fencing. When I took a look at the situation the following day, I found that the illegal army of festival-goers had already dug in—vehicles, tents, stage, the lot.

    The Minister will not be surprised if am critical. His Department owns the monument—and the monument acts as a magnet. Young people are attracted to it from all over the country and the Continent. They know that the main axis of the monument is aligned to the midsummer sunrise at 4.59 a.m. on 21st June. They know that Stonehenge is steeped in mystery and legend. They seek to get as close to it as possible, and that much is not difficult to understand.

    Their number runs into thousands. I am told that the invasion is planned and publicised by two communes in Muswell Hill. They arrive for a fortnight, and the Minister knows that there is no sanitation, no water, no firewood, no provision of any kind. The Minister is rightly concerned with the safety of the monument itself. He rings it with dannert wire, a necessity which both he and I regret. But the direct result is that the invading army, unable to penetrate the Minister’s defences, denied the chance to pitch camp within the stone circle, turns off the road a few hundred yards short of but in sight of the monument itself.

    The Minister then washes his hands of the whole business. It is, according to Lady Birk’s letter to me,

    “a matter for the police and the owners and occupiers of the land.”

    Yet, all too correctly, she points out:

    “the legal remedies open to owners and occupiers in the case of mass trespass are difficult to bring to bear in time to prevent the trespass from taking place. Neither we nor the police know the identity of the organisers and there is accordingly little prospect of obtaining an injunction to restrain them. Even if one were obtained against some individuals, and served upon them, others would be likely to take their place in promoting the festival.”

    Precisely. To put it another way, the law is inadequate. This is an ignoble posture for Government. The Minister rings his own plot with dannert wire, and with all the resources of the State. He then tells the National Trust and its farming tenants to fend for themselves, and in the same breath accepts the total absence of legal remedy available to them.

    So the first thing I ask the Minister for tonight is compensation for the farmer who has suffered. The Department’s receipts from the monument exceed £150,000 a year, and I am talking about 1 per cent. of that figure. These are unique circumstances. There is no danger of creating precedents, for there is only one Stonehenge, and its problems are peculiar, not general.

    I suggest that the Department should consider claims on an ex gratia basis. I suggest that the ability to claim should be confined solely to farming tenants of National Trust land surrounding the monument. I expect the Minister to accede to this request.

    If he tells me that he can find no way of doing so, I shall ask myself what calibre of Ministers are being appointed to the Department today. If a Minister cannot find £2,000 to ensure the good name of his Department, something is seriously wrong.

    A year ago the Minister spoke of

    “football crowds doing damage to shops and houses on their way to football grounds, in which cases the owners of the grounds cannot be expected to compensate all in the area for something a third party does.”—[Official Report, 27th July, 1977; Vol. 936, c. 905.]

    With respect, this is a wholly false analogy, and the Minister knows it.

    At Stonehenge the invaders have only one wish—to pitch their tents at the monument and the Minister’s dannert wire prevents them from doing so. His Department is on record as saying,

    “We realise, of course, that action to deter trespass on our land may deflect the festival on to other land nearby.”

    I have a second proposal. I suggest that in future the Minister should receive the invaders on his own land. He has a lease of some 30 acres, so there is plenty of room. The police will be happy about that. Archaeologically the dangers are no greater than at present. The National Trust is greatly troubled by the whole ​ business, but it would be prepared to agree that one site is less objectionable than others. The great advantage would be that damage to private property would cease.

    The Minister cannot have it both ways. Either he receives the tents and vehicles himself, or he assists those who carry the burden instead. His present stance is equivocal, and it does him no credit.

    I start from the premise that we cannot go on as we are. I accept that no alternative course is perfect, and I realise that the Minister’s 30 acres are cheek-by-jowl with the monument. This means that for a fortnight visitors will be horrified by the clutter of vehicles and tents close by. I repeat that no alternative course is perfect.

    However, I suspect that there is another reason why the Minister shies away from admitting the festival on to his own land. The festival is illegal—it is mass trespass. He cannot condone illegality. To me, that argument is valid the first year. It is less valid the second year. In the third year illegality becomes a recognised feature. After four years the argument about not condoning illegality becomes academic and hypocritical.

    Of course I deplore non-observance of the law, but I believe that we must face reality and cannot go on as we are. I believe that the Minister’s attitude, safely behind his barbed wire, is the regrettable attitude of “I’m all right, Jack.” If plans have to be made to hold in reserve and readiness water carts, firewood and what are called “Portaloos”, so be it.

    Finally, action is needed here in Parliament. The law is inadequate, yet the Department is silent. I believe that a Bill —the Night Assemblies Bill—would have helped. Surely that measure contained much that was constructive. Was it not regrettable that that Bill should have been talked out at a late stage by some of the Minister’s less responsible colleagues?

    I hope that the Minister will say a brief word tonight about his intentions in this respect. I have not time now to deal with the important questions of crowd control and all the rest of it. That must wait. We are deeply proud in Wiltshire to have this great monument, but it is an inheritance which brings practical ​ problems in its train. I hope that the Minister will help.

  • John Stokes – 1978 Speech on MP Salaries

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Stokes, the then Conservative MP for Halesowen and Stourbridge, in the House of Commons on 28 July 1978.

    In some ways it is a pity that this debate has been so wide ranging and dominated by the bizarre and perhaps brilliant exposition of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) which I felt was more suitable to an eighteenth century Parliament than to our Parliament. I often wish that we did live in those great and glorious days but, alas, we do not. I agree that when Members of Parliament were not paid we were probably better governed than we are now, but we have to address ourselves to the realities of the present situation.

    I was sorry that the right hon. Member for Down, South seemed to imply ​ that he was a slightly more honourable Member than others. I am sure that he did not mean to imply that, but it might be read into some parts of his rather puritanical and hair-shirted speech. The right hon. Member was very personal about himself. I do not intend to be. I will say that although it had been my ambition to come to this House for as long as I can remember, I waited until I had started a business and made a success of it and had some money behind me, apart from what I might earn here. When I came here I never thought for a moment of what I would earn or how well off or otherwise I would be.

    That is not the case for everybody. Many hon. Members entered this House years before I did. Many depend entirely and exclusively upon their salaries. It is those hon. Members about whom we should be mainly concerned. Those of us who have the advantage of another income must be particularly careful to give that point due regard. It is always a difficult thing for us to consider our own salaries. There are two difficulties to overcome. I speak as someone who has been dealing with salaries and other matters for most of my adult life since the war.

    The first point to make is that we are practically the only people in this country who fix our own remuneration. Secondly, that already difficult situation is exacerbated by the Government’s pay policies, which have introduced anomalies, delays and frustrations. The occupation of Members of Parliament, strictly speaking, cannot be compared with any other job.

    I deal first with Ministers’ salaries. We have heard a lot about Members’ salaries but little about the salaries of Ministers. I believe that they are still scandalously low, by any comparison. That must have a bearing on Members’ salaries. I cannot see why the Prime Minister should not be paid a salary of around £50,000 a year. That is much lower than the salaries of some of the chairmen of our great companies. The salaries of other Ministers could then rise in proportion.

    There is a new factor affecting the salaries of Ministers and hon. Members—the vast improvement in the salaries, pensions and conditions of service of the Civil Service. There has been created a ​ specially favoured class, insulated from the financial problems faced by almost all other people. While I would not for a moment claim that we should enjoy such exceptionally favourable terms, I do say that it is wrong that there should be such a colossal disparity between the Civil Service and ourselves. This disparity is shown up in the non-contributory pensions and in the pay and other conditions of service enjoyed in the Civil Service.

    I speak as a Member who, since leaving the Army, has spent most of his life as an industrial manager. I believe that we must attract into the House more people from industry, commerce and the City. The able young men, possibly in their early thirties, who are making their careers outside, must be offered some sort of salary which will not involve too great a financial sacrifice, particularly if they are married, with families. We can never make up our minds what sort of people we are here. Listening to the right hon. Member for Down, South, I felt that he seemed to think that we were still members of the old aristocracy or landed gentry, or possibly the richer burgesses from the towns. Those days are over. This place should represent all classes in society. We still have—I hope that we always shall have—the upper House to correct any excesses of democracy here. I strongly believe that the upper House should be based on hereditary peers. If we are to say that, surely we must have a truly democratic assembly here.

    Pay policy has utterly confounded salaries in this place, as it has in every other department of our national life. I do not believe in incomes policies. They are holding back the country’s industrial, commercial and professional life. As long as the Government insist on a rigid pay policy we are placed in an awkward situation. If this House later decides that all of those in the country—those who work and those who do not, those with responsibilities and those without them, those who are highly skilled and those who are not—should be limited in their new contracts of employment to an increase not exceeding 5 per cent. it will make us look very selfish and foolish if we talk about paying ourselves thousands of pounds a year more.

    That is not to say that we should not do so. It shows how absurd and ridiculous is the 5 per cent. limit. There has been much talk of attaching our salaries to an outside source. This has its attractions. However, I believe that we should have the courage to say that we are comparable with no one, and that we have, in our own wisdom, the right to fix our own levels of pay. The time is soon coming when we must make a supreme effort to deal with this matter once and for all. I feel most embarrassed when I see older Members here hanging on, dreading retirement, because of the continued delay about fixing proper rates of salary and pension.

    It is also extremely confusing and muddling to have one rate of salary here and to have another notional salary for pension purposes. The only way to deal properly with pensions is to have a proper rate of salary here.

    We have very serious issues before us. People say that the public are extremely disagreeable about our salaries, but I believe that to be largely unfounded. In all the correspondence that I have received in the eight and a quarter years that I have been here, I have not received a single letter either about my salary or about the salaries of other Members. Therefore, I say to hon. Members on both sides of the House, let us be bold, decide what is right, and make absolutely sure that the new figure applies the moment the new Parliament meets.

  • Charles Morrison – 1978 Speech on MP Salaries

    Below is the text of the speech made by Charles Morrison, the then Conservative MP for Devizes, in the House of Commons on 28 July 1978.

    I feel that the sands of time have run out even before I start, so I shall endeavour to be brief. I agreed strongly with the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) when he said that hon. Members should be able to live adequately. I might add “by roughly equivalent standards”, but I emphasise “roughly” because I also agree with him that we are unique and I do not think that our salary scale should be attached to any other scale. That must mean a review by the Boyle committee or its equivalent not just once in a while, at the behest of the Government, but at regular intervals. This is an objective towards which we should be working.

    I was glad that the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) laid so much emphasis on the extent to which, even now, certain people—an increasing number in future—will be precluded from becoming Members because they will not be able to maintain the standard of living that they could obtain outside.

    However highly motivated the potential parliamentarian aged 28 or 30 may be, since it is not unusual for young people of that age to have been married only recently, he may well have to consider carefully his responsibility towards his wife and family. In addition, when wives consider the alternatives of the parliamentary salary or their husbands continuing in their present careers and gradually climbing the ladder, most will tell their husbands that in no circumstances should they go into the House of Commons. That is an important aspect for us to take into account.

    There was a germ of truth in some of the comments of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), but his main argument was old-fashioned stuff, which had nothing to do with the world in which we have to live. He said that we should make our decision on behalf of subsequent Parliaments and not for ourselves. I disagree; I believe that we should make the decision, implement it, and go to the country carrying that responsibility on our own shoulders, rather than half-pretending that only others will benefit from our decision. I would prefer to come clean with the electors to putting up a smoke-screen and pretending that something that is to happen will not happen.

    I agree strongly with those who said that it is never the right time to review parliamentary salaries. For almost as long as I can remember, there have been the additional problems involved with incomes policies, but the real and relative values of parliamentary salaries have been steadily eroded. If it pleases the right hon. Member for Down, South, I add the words “while I have been an hon. Member.”

    The fact that salaries are too low is entirely the fault of ourselves, particularly the Back Benchers. Our salaries are not imposed on us by the Treasury; they are imposed on us because we have not been prepared to take a strong line ourselves. In the past, there has been a lot of lobbying by us all, particularly Back Benchers, about salary increases, but when the Government of the day decide to make increases or to implement someone else’s recommendations, we Back Benchers have too often run scared. We have run for cover and let the Government carry ​ the can. In consequence, we have got what we deserve—or, perhaps, what we do not deserve.

    Looking to the future, it is important that, to a much greater extent, we should personalise the responsibility on each of us for justifying the salaries that we receive. This is a subsidiary objective in the development of the joint approach between both main parties for which the greatest credit must be given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes).

    The Minister referred to future pay increases and said that there were grave difficulties in giving a blind commitment in advance. I understand that. It is not surprising that there should be that reaction from the Government Front Bench, in isolation. It is not impossible for the commitment, which has been requested by other hon. Members, to be made by both Front Benches and, if need be, by the minor parties. If such a commitment is not made there will be continuing and growing dissatisfaction because of the uncertainty that will arise.

    Unless some such commitment is entered into there will be an unseemly row, such as there has been in other countries, for example, Australia. The outcome of that sort of row will be that the Back Benches will be in control and will impose their will on the Government of the day and, perhaps, the Opposition Front Bench. The Government have to remember that they are the servants of Parliament, not vice versa.

  • Alexander Lyon – 1978 Speech on MP Salaries

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alexander Lyon, the then Labour MP for York, in the House of Commons on 28 July 1978.

    Membership of the House is unique, but that does not make it any easier for us to make a unique valuation of our worth. It falls to us to do so by the nature of the means by which we are paid. We have to decide, though perhaps on the advice of some committee, how much we shall pay ourselves, and there is no escape from that.

    If I could believe that the 630 Members of Parliament had the political courage and virility to take a decision about their worth in complete isolation from the valuation of any other job in the country, I should be happy to leave it at that. I accept the difficulties of trying to tie ourselves to a particular status in the Civil Service, to the status of a company chairman or any other analogue anywhere else. But the reason why we turn our attention to that is that we have lacked the courage in the past to say to people that membership of the House of Commons, although it is unique and although it is an inestimable privilege to be here, is nevertheless a factor which we have to consider in deciding the amount of money which we are paid since, like anyone else who goes out to work, we are dependent for the standard of living ​which we provide not just for ourselves but for our families upon the salaries which we receive.

    It is right that we should make a position for ourselves which allows those Members—their number is increasing—who decide that they must be professional Members of Parliament and have no other income to live adequately upon those resources without having to burden themselves and their families with concern about finance on top of all the other concerns which we take upon ourselves as Members of Parliament.

    Accepting that, I should be quite happy to make a judgment of our own worth and tell people that, if they did not like it, that was what we thought appropriate and at any subsequent election they must make whatever choice they liked about our valuation of ourselves. But I know that that is not how the House works, and still less how the process of government works.

    For that reason, we have tried to find alternative ways of reducing the political tension which arises whenever we decide what we should be paid. We have tried the advisory committee. We are now suggesting another way—tying ourselves to Civil Service rates of pay so that automatically we get a payment which we do not have to settle for ourselves.

    If hon. Members feel that that is an easier way of settling a valuation of our services, so be it. I should go along with it. But I think that to pay ourselves the rate of an assistant secretary is to some extent demeaning. I remember that when I was a junior Minister, and only a junior Minister, the lowest form of Civil Service life allowed through my door was an assistant secretary, and he was allowed in only in exceptional circumstances. When I recognised that when he came in through the door he was at that time being paid substantially more than I was being paid to take the decisions on which he was advising, it seemed to me that it was a bit demeaning to talk about that, but at the present time an assistant secretary on the full rate is being paid about double the rate at which we are paid.

    We cannot be immune to that. It is not true that civil servants will categorise us, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) said, according to the amount ​ of money we receive and that a permanent secretary will be dismissive of us simply because we are paid less than he is. If we were paid a lot more, he would be dismissive of us. The real reason why he is dismissive of us is that we do not assert the power we have. Indeed, my main concern in this matter is that we are Parliament. It is not for us to wait upon the Lord President of the Council. It is not for us to wait for the Cabinet or Lord Boyle, or, indeed, the assistant secretaries or the Civil Service unions. We are Parliament. If we really had the dignity which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) says we have, we should be impervious to the criticisms of outside bodies of that kind. We should decide how much we were to be paid.

    I had not intended to refer to the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South, which seemed to me to be beneath contempt, but, when he expresses populist sentiments of the kind which we heard from him this morning, I recall how much he charges for his television appearances, and I take it ill from him when he talks about hacks. Incidentally, I noticed that when he uttered his populist sentiments the hacks disappeared from the Press Gallery in order to put into tomorrow’s newspapers what one Member of the House thinks about 629 others. I do not regard that as improving the standard and dignity of the House of Commons. Moreover, one may add that among those hacks who disappeared gleefully to report that we should not be paid more than £6,000 a year some will not be able to report it in The Sun as they are on strike because they were paid only a 10 per cent. increase on their £13,000 a year and they want a lot more. They are the real hacks of Fleet Street.

    Therefore, we need not apologise for saying that we ought to be paid a proper salary—and by a proper salary I mean something which will allow a man to be a professional Member of Parliament and live on his salary without having constantly to consider his own finances as opposed to the other issues which he has to consider.

    In deciding what that value is, the kind of role we have is an important matter. When I see the Badge Messengers who bring us our messages wearing their white ties and tails, I remember that I was ​ told that they wear that dress because they are the descendants here of the butlers who used to come here in the nineteenth century to prepare the meals for their masters who came down for their evening sojourn in this place.

    But that was an entirely different kind of Member from the Member who is here today. I recall the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) once told me that, after his first arrival in the House in 1945, he went to King’s Cross station to catch the train back to his constituency and there met a Member of Parliament—who shall be nameless—who said “I am just making my annual visit to my constituency.” None of us could get away with that now, whatever the size of our majority.

    The truth is that, whatever the right hon. Member for Down, South thinks—I am little surprised at his recollections—we are all conscious that we are working harder and we are doing a more professional job, even if we are not full-time professionals. We are doing a more professional job in the House, and we are doing it with much less support in the way of services, facilities and accommodation than is enjoyed by most other people who are doing a professional job.

    I want to put this matter into its context. My judgment is that the House of Commons is no real challenge to the power of bureaucracy and the power of Government in this country as at present constituted. We must revise the way in which we work so that we can take a real share in decision-making. We cannot go on with the tradition which has come down to us since the sixteenth century that we simply correct Government decisions after they have been made—that we are the better after the event. The fact that we have the party structure and that we have a systematised way of expressing opposition, which simply means that we can delay things for a little while but in the end the power of the Whips will decide, means that the decisions when taken by the Cabinet are almost always irrevocable.

    I accept that in this Parliament—I see my right hon. Friend the Lord President looking a little pained—things have been slightly different because it has not been possible to amass the majority quite as ​ easily as in past Parliaments, but overall the Government get their way. They got their way last night in circumstances which seemed to be quite unexpected. It is the unexpected for a Government not to get their way, and as long as that continues decisions when in the Cabinet are almost always irrevocable.

    Therefore, if we wish to influence the Government and, more important, if we wish to check the power of the bureaucracy, we must be involved in decision-taking before the decisions are made. That requires that we go over to the kind of powerful Select Committees which amass the evidence and evaluate it before it goes to Ministers and before the final decision is taken. This calls for a Member of Parliament entirely different in kind from the Member we have today. Such a Member must be here more often than we are. He must have support services in the way of research and staff which we do not have. He must be able to work during the day and have his nights off. That means that we have to alter the times at which we sit.

    We shall not get that sort of hon. Member on the present part-time basis. I admit that I am a part-time Member in that sense. I do not regard myself as doing a part-time job for my constituents, but I have another source of income. I hate having it and would much prefer to be a professional Member. The only reason why I have the outside income is that I cannot live on the present income of an hon. Member and I regard the other job as a sort of insurance.

    If we were given a proper salary and were paid properly for a period after we left the House, none of us could ask for more and we could all become professional Members. I do not think that it is necessary for us to have a ruling that everyone should be a professional Member, but our hours, means of working, pay and resources should be based upon the notion that that is what we are, and I hope that the Boyle committee will evaluate our work on that basis alone. If it tries to evaluate our work on the basis that some of us have other sources of income, that will be an injustice to those who are already professional Members.

    We are also discussing the question of the new parliamentary building.

    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern)

    Order. The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. We are not debating the new building at present. That debate will come on later.

    Mr. Lyon

    I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In those circumstances, I shall not say much about the new building, but it is part of the whole business of what sort of evaluation we have of hon. Members. We must not have the sort of evaluation that says that we cannot be housed in proper facilities with proper accommodation, but we must allow civil servants and anyone else to be housed in such accommodation. Indeed, we make it an offence for employers not to house their employees in proper accommodation, yet we bury ourselves in little holes down Whitehall or round the back of the Jewel Tower. That demeans the role that we should have.

    I support the notion that we should be paid properly and should have proper back-up services. We should not be so dependent upon our allowances for secretarial assistance and so on. These should be provided for us because of our need for them rather than by our having to claim them. That is a better way of dealing with our status in this place.

  • Robert Rhodes James – 1978 Speech on MP Salaries

    Below is the text of the speech made by Robert Rhodes James, the then Conservative MP for Cambridge, in the House of Commons on 28 July 1978.

    I agree with the closing words of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart), because we all feel a great sense of uneasiness at debating this matter at all. I have great sympathy with some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).

    It is a privilege and honour to be a Member of this House. We have come perhaps for many different reasons, but the honour and privilege of being here is something that we all feel, whatever our political views, very deeply. First, we have the conflict as to what is the job of a Member of Parliament anyway, and, secondly, we are all volunteers. So why should we find ourselves in the position of, in effect, voting money for ourselves or putting ourselves in the position of at least appearing to do so?

    I am conscious, particularly as we are approaching a General Election in which many Members will not be standing again—including you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart), I regret to say—of the fact that while I am Member for Cambridge now I shall not be for ever. In course of time I shall have a successor, and I should like to hand to him the same traditions and at least some improvement on the conditions which obtain for Members at the moment.

    The right hon. Member for Down, South came to this House in 1950. I first came in another capacity in 1955. When I returned as a Member after an absence of 12 years, I was astonished by the enormous increase in the burden of work falling on the average Back Bencher. Of course, constituencies vary very much, as do the burdens; there is also a variation of manner in which Members cope with their burdens. Mr. David Lloyd George made it a point of principle never to open, let alone read, letters from constituents. Every few months, he would dig out those letters and throw them away. His biographer said that this was one of the egocentricities with which his constituents learnt to live. Whether his attitude would be tolerated by a constituency today is another question.

    Quite apart from the additional constituency work entailed in these modern days, the burden inflicted upon Members by Whitehall has increased. We have to consider whether we should not ask what is the nature of our job and whether we should continue to pretend that we are still in the Victorian era when a gentleman of leisure, having thought deeply about the great affairs of the day, came down to the House in the late afternoon or in the evening and made a great speech on the Spanish question, for example. I wonder whether we are not putting ourselves in the position of being little more than glorified councillors.

    What should the position and role of a Member of Parliament be? I agree with those, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who have criticised Members in the past for their cowardice or failure to grasp the problem. Nevertheless, having said that, I have to feel some sympathy with our predecessors. When I was a Clerk in the House, at the age of 28 I was earning £500 a year more than Sir Winston Churchill or any other Member. I felt that situation very acutely. I feel it now as we come again to talk about these matters. We are talking about ourselves, and that is why I try to think of my successor, whoever he may be and whenever he may come in.

    There are two points which I wish to emphasise. First, I am worried about a situation in which the allowances are so substantial and so important to Members. It worries me a great deal. Everyone is an “honourable Member” and so on, but when one is in a situation where allowances arc so vital, as I know they are to many Members who have no other source of income, the possibility of difficulty and of temptation clearly arises. I would like to see us come to a situation in which the salary is very much higher and we can look again at the whole question of allowances.

    Although I agree with what hon. Members have said about comparisons with other countries and other legislatures, I think that there is something to be said for that part of the American system whereby the President and Congressmen and others are paid substantially and reasonably and given very good facilities, in return for which every candidate must ​ give a clear declaration of his interests, his income and his background.

    I know that a lot of hon. Members do not like that idea, but I have no reluctance at all about it. It seems to me quite legitimate to ask, in return for a substantial increase in the parliamentary salary, that candidates should be clear and should inform their potential electors of their worth. The present Register of Interests is quite worthless. The word “barrister” or “consultant” can mean anything. It can mean a very small income or it can mean an enormous income. It can mean a part-time Member of Parliament or an absolutely full-time Member of Parliament.

    If we are to move—I know that we shall not do it today, but I hope that we shall in the future—in the direction of a substantial and reasonable salary for Members of Parliament, we for our part must recognise that we have an obligation to be absolutely open with our electorate about our worth and our general financial position.

  • David Stoddart – 1978 Speech on MP Salaries

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Stoddart, the then Labour MP for Swindon, in the House of Commons on 28 July 1978.

    The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is about the smartest operator in this place. He has shown today how smart he is. He appears to have the argument both ways. He blames this House, quite wrongly by his own standards, for inflation, yet he does not want to give it the credit for doubling living standards over the past 25 years. That is sleight of hand.

    On the right hon. Gentleman’s figures, a salary of £1,000 a year for an MP in 1950, allowing for inflation, would be £4,782 today. But if we doubled that, as everyone else’s standard of living has doubled—for which we can take some credit—the figure becomes £9,564, or almost exactly the figure proposed as the pensionable salary. So by his own argument the right hon. Gentleman confirms that the pensionable salary is correct. I hope that he will support it. He cannot say that this House is responsible for inflation and should penalise itself while at the same time refusing the House the credit for doubling living standards.

    Mr. Powell

    The hon. Gentleman is mistaken, with respect. It is perfectly possible to believe and to argue that Governments can and do cause inflation but that they cannot and do not cause an increase in the standard of living. There is no inconsistency between the two propositions. They may or may not be right, but they are not inconsistent.

    Mr. Stoddart

    I think that there is great inconsistency between them. The right hon. Gentleman has argued that rapid inflation does the most damage to the standard of living. I have heard him argue that, and he is probably correct. So there is no inconsistency in what I say.

    I have been unable to discover the figures for professional salaries paid in 1950 as compared with today, but I have found the figures for the average manual wage. In 1950, it was £7·52 a week, and in 1977 it was £72·89. An increase of 10 per cent. would give us a figure of over £79, representing an elevenfold increase in money terms. I am sure that ​ hon. Members would settle for that kind of increase on the £1,000 that they enjoyed in 1950. So the right hon. Gentleman is caught up in his own argument.

    But there is something more serious about his attitude. It strikes at the very roots of representative democracy, which I know he supports and wants to continue. On his argument, it is certain that there is no possibility of representative democracy in this country. It would preclude many people from giving their talents.

    My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) mentioned the responsibility of all men and women to their families. If he had a family, a teacher, a doctor, a civil engineer, or an architect could not afford to give up his profession for the salary paid here—

    Mr. Alan Clark

    Yes he could; he could take a cut in his standard of living.

    Mr. Stoddart

    Yes, but he would also have enforced a cut in the standard of living of his wife and family, which he has no right to do.

    Mr. John Lee (Birmingham, Handsworth)

    It is not that he could not do it so much as that more and more people will not do it. That is why we shall get fewer people of high ability from the professions, simply because it is not worth their while. More than that, it means such a cut in their standard of living that they will not put up with it.

    Mr. Stoddart

    My hon. Friend is right. The House would be denying itself the wide scale of experience and ability that is essential to a representative Chamber if it is to check the Executive. For that reason the argument of the right hon. Member for Down, South was wrong. If it were put into effect it would endanger the democracy that he, above all, wishes to defend.

    The right hon. Gentleman discounts the attitude of people towards salaries. He believes that people have more respect for Members of Parliament or Members of any other Assembly if they do it for nothing—if, in fact, they do not put any value at all upon their services. I ask him to look at the respect with which county councillors and district councillors are sometimes held by the electorate. I ​ think he will find that the lack of remuneration may have something to do with the low respect—not justified—in which the electorate holds such people.

    The right hon. Gentleman also discounts the differences between salaries paid in this legislature and those paid in legislatures elsewhere. I agree that because France happens to pay three times as much to its legislators as we pay ours is not necessarily an argument for paying us three times as much as we are getting. Nevertheless, there must be a relationship; indeed, there is. I repeat that the value that people put on an institution may well be—it is not always so—related to the value that the institution puts upon itself. That is perhaps one of the reasons why the United States Congress may be held in greater esteem than this House.

    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his attitude, particularly bearing in mind that next year we shall be electing yet another Assembly—one which neither of us wants. It will have an effect on salaries paid in this House, and may have an effect on the regard in which this House is held throughout the country.

    I believe that the Government and the House have failed to consider Members’ salaries in a proper way for a very long period. The House of Commons has been far too frightened of the electorate and has put far too low a value on the job that it does for the community. I hope that we shall reach a new era—I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has decided that the matter should be referred to the Boyle committee—when the salaries of Members cease to become a political issue, in the sense that they have been a political issue over the years. I do not think that they can cease entirely to be a political issue, but I hope that some means will be found, whether by relating the salary to salaries in the Civil Service or to the salaries of circuit judges, or what have you, by which the salaries of Members of this House can be settled without a political battle and without Members being criticised in the press over the business that we have of fixing our own salaries.

    I hope that these motions will be passed in their entirety. My right hon. Friend has given an assurance that he will refer ​ the matter to the Boyle committee, but I hope that he will also give an assurance that he will accept the Boyle recommendations in their entirety.

  • Alan Clark – 1978 Speech on MP Salaries

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alan Clark, the then Conservative MP for Plymouth Sutton, in the House of Commons on 28 July 1978.

    I completely reject the concept that our salaries can in any way be linked to, or that they are in any sense comparable ​ with, earnings in other parts of society. I find it humiliating and ludicrous that company directors, and still less colonels or middle-range civil servants, should be compared with Members of Parliament.

    I take the view—I say this at the outset to put at rest the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House—that Members of Parliament should not receive any salary at all.

    Mr. William Hamilton

    He would.

    Mr. Clark

    The hon. Member says that I would. Would he care to elaborate on that?

    The hon. Member rejects my invitation to explain. But he was arguing earlier, in a speech to which I listened with great interest, that we should be attached to a certain grade in the Civil Service. He knows how civil servants treat Members and the combination of contempt and evasion with which they try to keep us in our place. He knows very well that from the moment that we were attached to a certain grade in the Civil Service we would be completely brushed aside by those of a senior grade and we would be simply categorised at a medium range in the administration of the country.

    Mr. George Cunningham

    By whom would we be categorised in that way?

    Mr. Clark

    I should have thought that it would be done by anyone who could master simple arithmetic.

    However, if Members of Parliament are to be paid a salary that is in any way commensurate with the arduousness of their task and the duties they have to perform, it should be something between £90,000 and £130,000 a year.
    Let us consider the status, the responsibility, the unsocial hours, the working conditions and the hardships to which we are subjected daily in these crowded, stuffy quarters. Let us consider the disgusting and repetitive food that we are offered here. Deep-fried whitebait has been on the menu every day this Session. Let us consider the level of humiliation under which we exist, comparable only with that in domestic service in Victorian times.

    Yesterday, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was talking about knee pads being used by those who had to crawl about for jobs. Members of ​ Parliament stand in a state of apprehensive subservience to practically every other individual whom they meet. They are subservient to their seniors because they hope to receive favours from them. They are subservient to their colleagues because they hope that perhaps at some time they may require their votes for some internal election. They are subservient to members of the party who elected them and put them here, and are apprehensive that these people may suddenly change their minds. They are, of course, subservient to their constituents, upon whose votes they rely for return to this place.

    In view of Members’ conditions, their duty to scrutinise and amend legislation and the disagreeable regime under which they try to work, either they do so from a sense of honour and duty, in which case their remuneration should be a totally secondary consideration, or, if they are to be paid, they should be paid at least at a level which completely removes them from any comparison with a middle-range civil servant or military commander. That is a completely mistaken yardstick for 635 individuals who have come here from a sense of idealism and a genuine desire either to alter or to conserve things.

    The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) was very dismissive of the the concept that the aristocracy should compose the Members of this Chamber, but, as I said to him, the concept of aristocracy simply means the rule of the best. It is arguable that this country was governed much better when the aristocracy occupied places in this Chamber.

    Mr. John Stokes (Halesowen and Stourbridge)

    Hear, hear.

    Mr. Clark

    I am grateful for that support. Were this country’s prosperity, standing, prospects and size of its dominions any less when the aristocracy governed? No, they were much greater.

    I do not relate the two directly, but if Members are to be paid on a proper assessment of what they do and of their status, honour and obligations, they should be paid six-figure salaries. If we look instead for a combination of a sense of honour a sense of duty and a sense of privilege which allows people to endure all our conditions, it is immaterial what ​ they are paid. Personally, I would prefer that we were paid nothing at all.