Orders of the Day — Hansard, Bound Volumes (Members of Parliament)

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 7 November 1944.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Denis Pritt Mr Denis Pritt , Hammersmith North 12:00, 7 November 1944

With regard to bound volumes of HANSARD, I gather that the actual trouble is the work of binding. There was a time when we were told we could not have HANSARD for two or three days, but the indignation of the House put that right in a few hours. Many things have been achieved during the war and we ought to be able to achieve the idea of binding HANSARD and not binding something else. If that is the trouble, it would be possible to have the parts stoutly stitched for the time being. One must remember, too, that there is this very considerable disadvantage in the day-to-day HANSARD. The natural result of the combination of Members who do not speak up and reporters situated some distance away from them is that there are inaccuracies in the day-to-day copies, which are corrected in the volume. On one occasion a quotation was made from a daily part, and the Member alluded to got up and said: "I said nothing of the sort and, if you look in the bound volume, it has been corrected." With regard to paying Members' fares, I would point out that before the last war the German Government—in ordinary matters the meanest on earth, and paying its Members a very small salary indeed—provided its Members with a season ticket over all railway lines. It may be that it would be wrong to do that at the moment, because we want to keep travel down, but I would ask the Financial Secretary to consider this. Let him get some of his experts to form an estimate of what it would cost to give a season ticket to Members of Parliament over all lines. I have an impression that it would come to less than 30s. a week. Let him see what he actually pays and he will find that it it a great deal more than 30s., so that it would be a saving for the Government as well as saving a lot of time and paper.

I do not know that at any time they provided secretaries in Germany but they do in Sweden, the United States and Canada. That is impracticable at the moment, because you cannot get a good secretary, I will not say for love, but certainly not for money. The time will come, however, when it will be possible. The employment of a secretary makes a tremendous difference to one's efficiency. If I had no secretary I should either go mad, or leave the House. If we start the next Parliament with the idea that every Member has to be given a competent secretary, it will make all the difference in the world to the efficiency of the nation and of Parliament, because the old gentlemen who are just passengers and have no use for a secretary, would be much more easily pushed out by younger men who would really do their job. There are Members who spend hours writing letters in the Library. If they once got the knack of having a competent secretary, they would save two or three hours a day in which they could study the points that they wish to bring up in the House. The only suggestion I have to make in addition to what the hon. Lady has said, is that it should be the duty of every appointed secretary to report on how much work she was getting, and if she was not getting enough work her employer should be "carpeted" by his constituency association.