MINISTERS’ SALARIES

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 159, 7 June 1937, Page 6

MINISTERS’ SALARIES

Anomalies in the salaries of British Ministers of the Crown arebeing- removed in the Bill which has now passed its third reading. | .Seventeen years ag-o a Select,l Committee recommended many of I the changes now to be made, and i in 1930 another Select Committee | urged that the outstanding anomaly, the salary of the Prime Minister, should be redressed, in spite of the financial stringency then prevailing. The Bill therefore was not in any way regarded as premature. Mention of it was made in the King’s Speech at the opening of Parliament and Earl Baldwin’s Government fulfilled the promise which has been given effect by the House of Commons. At present the Ministers for Agriculture, Labour, Transport, and Education, and the Secretary for Scotland are included in the Cabinet, but they receive salaries on a lower scale than any of their colleagues except those holding sinecure offices and the post of I irst Commissioner of Works. The salary of the Prime Minister, it may be mentioned, has remained the same as when the late Lord Oxford said in 1920 that the holder of the office could not discharge his duties efficiently unless he had private means. The Bill provides a salary of ,£SOOO a year for all Cabinet Ministers and of £IO,OOO for the Prime Minister. The Select Committee of 1920 recommended £BOOO for the Prime Minister, but considered opinion in England is that the larger sum gives the occupant of the office no more than is sufficient to maintain his official residence and to show the hospitality required of him. It has also been estimated that, after allowing for heavier taxation and the increased cost of living, the real value of the new salary will not be much more than the real value of the Prime Minister’s salary in 1913. Furthermore, a person who has been Prime Minister may also ulaim a pension of £2000; annually under the Bill, which also makes a readjustment in the salaries of Under-Secretaries, bringing them into proportion with those of their responsible Ministers. Another innovation which did not wholly meet with the favour of the Labour Party was a proposal to pay £2OOO a year to the Leader of the Opposition. It is worth recalling that a year ago the principles of the Bill were debated on a private member’s motion, when the House of Commons showed a large measure of agreement. There was, however, surprising opposition to the Bill which received assent on the third reading by a margin of 44 votes in a small House.